• anti-idpol action@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      so basically anything without manual memory management. I don’t really see a good point in shilling particular names aside from discussions on performance impact of GC vs VM vs ownership

      • calcopiritus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Not really manual memory management. I’d say C++'s memory management is automatic, just not safe.

        Yes, a lot of programming languages are memory safe, maybe it would be faster to list memory unsafe popular languages.

  • Aurenkin
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    1 year ago

    If you aren’t getting seg faults, are you really living?

  • Aboel3z@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I find it amazing that so many are clinging on to C++. It must be that sense of accomplishment when you finally succeed, having solved a bunch of problems on the way. C++ has had so many chances now. Many new standards coming out over the last decade. But the language is hardly simpler, just more to learn. See CoreCppGuidelines. This is what the 2 most prominent people of C++ want developers to learn in order to practice “safe” C++. This doesn’t scale. A language needs to be built from the ground up for developers. Rust has taken a whole new concept and tried to solve memory issues directly with the compiler. Other languages are solving other kinds of issues (for differing kinds of use cases). A language should not put such a burden on the developer.

  • Noble Shift@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Laughs in Assembler …I wouldn’t have had work using any of those languages because you can’t manage the memory.