cmeerw@programming.dev to C++@programming.devEnglish · edit-24 months agoThe empire of C++ strikes back with Safe C++ blueprintwww.theregister.comexternal-linkmessage-square38fedilinkarrow-up137arrow-down12cross-posted to: [email protected][email protected]
arrow-up135arrow-down1external-linkThe empire of C++ strikes back with Safe C++ blueprintwww.theregister.comcmeerw@programming.dev to C++@programming.devEnglish · edit-24 months agomessage-square38fedilinkcross-posted to: [email protected][email protected]
minus-squareDark Arc@social.packetloss.gglinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3arrow-down7·4 months agoIf a “safe C++” proposal truly proposes a safe subset, then yes your C++ code would have to opt-in to doing unsafe things. For the purposes of this discussion of a safe subset … the point is moot.
minus-squareFizzyOrange@programming.devlinkfedilinkarrow-up7arrow-down1·3 months agoIt’s not moot. The Safe C++ is opt-in to safety. It has to be because otherwise it wouldn’t be compatible with existing C++.
minus-squareDark Arc@social.packetloss.gglinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2arrow-down5·edit-23 months agoThat’s a laudable difference /s. Using Rust is also an “opt-in” option.
If a “safe C++” proposal truly proposes a safe subset, then yes your C++ code would have to opt-in to doing unsafe things. For the purposes of this discussion of a safe subset … the point is moot.
It’s not moot. The Safe C++ is opt-in to safety. It has to be because otherwise it wouldn’t be compatible with existing C++.
That’s a laudable difference /s. Using Rust is also an “opt-in” option.