this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2024
35 points (94.9% liked)

C++

1738 readers
5 users here now

The center for all discussion and news regarding C++.

Rules

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
lysdexic@programming.dev
Nihili0@programming.dev
35
The empire of C++ strikes back with Safe C++ blueprint (www.theregister.com)
submitted 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) by cmeerw@programming.dev to c/cpp@programming.dev
37 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] lysdexic@programming.dev 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (19 children)

From the article.

Josh Aas, co-founder and executive director of the Internet Security Research Group (ISRG), which oversees a memory safety initiative called Prossimo, last year told The Register that while it's theoretically possible to write memory-safe C++, that's not happening in real-world scenarios because C++ was not designed from the ground up for memory safety.

That baseless claim doesn't pass the smell check. Just because a feature was not rolled out in the mid-90s would that mean that it's not available today? Utter nonsense.

If your paycheck is highly dependent on pushing a specific tool, of course you have a vested interest in diving head-first in a denial pool.

But cargo cult mentality is here to stay.

[–] scratchee@feddit.uk 6 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

I think your take is a bit extreme.

Currently their statement (regardless of the questionable justification) is largely correct, no major c++ projects have been written in a safe subset and no real work has really started yet. It isn’t practical.

I do agree with you that a safe form of c++, once fully implemented and not frustrating to use, could easily become viable, the feature can be added. But that’s still years away from practical usage in large project, and even when done, many projects will stick to the older forms, making the transition slow and frustrating.

The practical result is that he’s sort of right, if you just add the word “currently” to his statement.

Otoh, I do agree with you that rust cannot be the sole answer to this problem either, it’s almost as impractical to rewrite codebases in rust as an as-yet unfinished safe form of C++. Only time and lots of effort can fix this problem

load more comments (18 replies)