this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2024
36 points (95.0% liked)

C++

1763 readers
1 users here now

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

Rules

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Nihili0@programming.dev
lysdexic@programming.dev
36
The empire of C++ strikes back with Safe C++ blueprint (www.theregister.com)
submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by cmeerw@programming.dev to c/cpp@programming.dev
38 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] hunger@programming.dev 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)

If you could reliably write memory safe code in C++, why do devs put memory safety issues intontheir code bases then?

Even highly paid (and probably skilled) devs in the IT industry manage to mess that up pretty regularly. Even if it was: devs using memory safe languages make much fewer mistakes wrt. managing memory... so that tooling does seem to help them at least more than the C++ tooling helps the C++ devs.

[–] lysdexic@programming.dev -3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

If you could reliably write memory safe code in C++, why do devs put memory safety issues intontheir code bases then?

That's a question you can ask to the guys promoting the adoption of languages marketed based on memory safety arguments. I mean, even Rust has a fair share of CVEs whose root cause is unsafe memory management.

[–] FizzyOrange@programming.dev 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

No it doesn't, that's bullshit.

[–] sukhmel@programming.dev 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Well, there is cve-rs, just sayin'

[–] robinm@programming.dev 3 points 1 month ago

The fact that rustc has bugs (which is what cve-rs exploit) doesn't invalidate that rust the language is memory safe.