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 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months 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
[–] lysdexic@programming.dev 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (20 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.

[–] BB_C@programming.dev 5 points 1 month ago (2 children)

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

it’s theoretically possible to write memory-safe C++

Maybe try to write more humbly and less fanatically, since you don't seem to be that knowledgable about anything (experienced in other threads too).

* It's "theoretically possible" to write memory-safe assembly if we bend contextual meanings enough.

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

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.

[–] BB_C@programming.dev 7 points 1 month ago
  • C++ offers no guaranteed memory safety.
  • A fictional safe C++ that would inevitably break backwards compatibility might as well be called Noel++, because it's not the same language anymore.
  • If that proposal ever gets implemented (it won't), neither the promise of guaranteed memory safety will hold up, nor any big C++ project will adopt it. Big projects don't adopt the (rollingly defined) so-called modern C++ already, and that is something that is a part of the language proper, standardized, and available via multiple implementations.

would you argue that it’s impossible to write a"hello, world" program in C++

bent as expected

This proposal is just a part of a damage control campaign. No (supposedly doable) implementation will ever see the light of day. Ping me when this is proven wrong.

load more comments (17 replies)