cmeerw@programming.dev to C++@programming.devEnglish · edit-28 months agoThe empire of C++ strikes back with Safe C++ blueprintwww.theregister.comexternal-linkmessage-square37fedilinkarrow-up138cross-posted to: programming@programming.devhackernews@lemmy.bestiver.setechnology@lemmit.online
arrow-up138external-linkThe empire of C++ strikes back with Safe C++ blueprintwww.theregister.comcmeerw@programming.dev to C++@programming.devEnglish · edit-28 months agomessage-square37fedilinkcross-posted to: programming@programming.devhackernews@lemmy.bestiver.setechnology@lemmit.online
minus-squareDark Arc@social.packetloss.gglinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up4·8 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-up7·8 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-up2·edit-28 months agoThat’s a laudable difference /s. Using Rust is also an “opt-in” option.
deleted by creator
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.