The only (arguably*) baseless claim in that quote is this part:

You do understand you're making that claim on the post discussing the proposal of Safe C++ ?

And to underline the absurdity of your claim, would you argue that it's impossible to write a"hello, world" program in C++ that's not memory-safe? From that point onward, what would it take to make it violate any memory constraints? Are those things avoidable? Think about it for a second before saying nonsense about impossibilities.

That way we’ll just find maintainers went near extinct over time, just like COBOL developers that are as rare as they are expensive.

Care to take a shot at figuring out why COBOL is still used today?

I mean, feel free to waste your time arguing for rewrites in your flavor of the month. That's how many failed projects start, too, so you can have your shot at proving them wrong.

But in the meantime you can try to think about the problem, because "rewrite it in Rust" is only reasonable for the types who are completely oblivious to the realities of professional software development.

Nobody’s perfect and time has shown multiple time that you can’t trust human beings with memory safety.

That's perfectly fine. That's not a problem caused UB, or involving UB.

Again, UB is a red herring.

It is however the language’s fault to allow UB in the first place.

It really isn't. Again, mindlessly parroting this doesn't give any substance to this claim. Please try to think about it for a second. For starters, do you believe it would make any difference if the C or C++ standard defined how the language should handle dereferencing a null pointer? I mean, in some platforms NULL is a tombstone, but on specific platforms NULL actually points to a valid memory address. The standards purposely leave this as undefined. Why is that? Seriously, think about it for a second.

Am I blaming those languages? Nah, it was a different time.

It really isn't. It's a design choice that reflects the need to work with the widest possible range of platforms. The standards have already been updated with backwards-incompatible changes, but even the latest revisions purposely include UB.

I repeat: I see people mindlessly parroting nonsense about UB when they clearly have no idea what they're talking about.

Some people also feel strongly about topics they are very familiar with 🙂. I have experienced my fair share of undefined behaviour in C++ and it has never been a pleasant experience.

If you had half the experience you claim to have, you'd know that code that triggers UB is broken code by definition, and represents a bug that you introduced.

It's not the language's fault that you added bugs to the code. UB is a red herring.

Sure, sometimes use of undefined behaviour works (...)

You missed the whole point of what I said.

By definition, UB does not work. It does not work because by design there is no behavior that should be expected. By design it's up to the implementation to fill in the blanks, but as far as the language spec goes there is no behavior that should be expected.

Thus, code with UB is broken code, and if your PR relies on UB then you messed up.

Nevertheless, some implementations do use UB to add guardrails to typical problems. However, if you crash onto a guardrail, that does not mean you know how to drive. Do you get the point?

What do you mean wrong “already”?

This is one of the problems in these discussions about undefined behavior: some people feel very strongly about topics they are entirely unfamiliar with.

According to the C++ standard, "undefined behavior may be expected when this document omits any explicit definition of behavior or when a program uses an erroneous construct or erroneous data." Some examples of undefined behavior still lead to the correct execution of a program, but even so the rule of thumb is to interpret all instances as wrong already.

It violates the principle of least surprise.

It really doesn't. I recommend you get acquainted with what undefined behavior is, and how it's handled by developers.

You don’t expect the compiler to delete your bounds checking etc.

By design, undefined behavior has a very specific purpose. Newbies are instructed to consider code that leads to undefined behavior as a bug they introduced. For decades compilers and static code analysis tools can detect and flag undefined behavior as errors in your code.

As I said before, sometimes it seems clueless developers parrot on about "undefined behavior" as some kind of gotcha although they clearly have no idea what they are talking about. Sometimes it sounds like they heard it somewhere and just mindlessly repeat it as if it meant something.

The way c and c++ define and use UB is like finding an error at compile time and instead of reporting it, the compiler decides to exploit it.

What are you talking about? Compilers can and do flag undefined behavior as errors. I recommend you read up on the documentation of any compiler.

Also, I don't think you fully understand the subject. For example, as an example, some compiler implementations leverage UB to add failsafes to production code such as preventing programs from crashing when, say, null pointers are dereferenced. We can waste everyone's time debating whether null pointers should be dereferenced, but what's not up for discussion is that, given the choice, professional teams prefer that their code doesn't crash in users' machine if it stumbles upon one of these errors.

99% of all servers a unix, which means code written for servers

This is where you start to get things the wrong way.

The code that runs on a server isn't necessarily built from source code in the same platform. You can easily have entire teams working on Windows on projects that incidentally only run on Unix-like OSes after they are deployed, which is the case of the whole ASP.NET stack.

It makes no sense to dictate what newline character you enforce a project based not on which platform a team will use to work on the source code but on whatever platform the project may or may not be deployed.

This approach is particularly absurd once you take into account the fact that Git supports line ending normalization, and it supports configuring which newline is used when checking out source code not only in a per-repository basis but also on a per-user and even per-local repository basis.

Maybe it’s time for windows to stop using CRLF and join the modern world?

Why do you think there is a problem and that's a solution?

Non profit doesn’t mean they earn nothing

You need a valid business model to keep an organization ticking. Staff doesn't live out of hopes and dreams. It's hard enough to get a for-profit software company to stay up. If your starting point is that the company is not focused on getting a profit then it all sounds as hopes and dreams instead of an actual business plan.

Gitea is so much better than this.

Is it, though?

Also, Apache Allura supports revision control services other than Git, which apparently Gitea does not.

MIT licensed as well.

Why do you think that is relevant, specially given Apache Allura is released under the Apache license?

The problem with the article is that it’s confusing hard realtime and low latency requirements. Most UIs do not require hard realtime, even soft realtime is a nice to have and users will tolerate some latency.

I don't think that's a valid take from the article.

The whole point of the article is that if a handler from a GUI application runs for too long then the application will noticeably block and degrade the user experience.

The real time mindset is critical to be mindful of this failure mode: handlers should have a time budget (compute, waiting dor IO, etc), beyond which the user experience degrades.

The whole point is that GUI applications, just like real-time applications, must be designed with these execution budgets in mind, and once they are not met them the application needs to be redesigned avoid these issues.

Let me give you a quick life lesson.

You've typed too many words to try to rationalize your toxic behavior.

I repeat: pay attention to what you say and do. All communities have their bad apples, but this does not grant the likes of you the right to spoil the whole barrel.