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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] funtrek@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 1 month ago (11 children)

The problem with c++ is that it allows people to do whatever they want. Turns out: people are dumb. Rust solved that problem. Nothing more, nothing less.

[–] Dark_Arc@social.packetloss.gg -3 points 1 month ago (9 children)

Rust still allows people to do (basically) whatever they want via unsafe blocks.

[–] FizzyOrange@programming.dev 8 points 1 month ago (4 children)

Yeah but I have written a lot of Rust and I have yet to use a single unsafe block.

Saying "but.. unsafe!" is like saying Python isn't memory safe because it has ctypes, or Go isn't memory safe because of its unsafe package.

[–] FalconMirage@jlai.lu 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

You don't have to use unsafe C++ functions either

C++ is technically safe if you follow best practices

The issue, to me, is that people learn older versions of the language first, and aren't aware of the better ways of doing stuff.

IMO people should learn the latest C++ version first, and only look at the older types of implementation when they come across them

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

C++ is technically safe if you follow best practices

Yeah but it's virtually impossible to reliably follow best practices. The compiler won't tell you when you're invoking UB and there is a lot of potential UB in C++.

So in practice it is not at all safe.

[–] FalconMirage@jlai.lu 4 points 1 month ago

I agree

I was only adding my opinion (that people should try to always use the latest version of C++, which is inherently safer, but still not 100% safe)

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)