The empire of C++ strikes back with Safe C++ blueprintwww.theregister.comexternal-linkcross-posted to: programming@programming.dev cmeerw ( @cmeerw@programming.dev ) C++@programming.devEnglish • edit-21 month ago message-square36fedilinkarrow-up124
arrow-up124external-linkThe empire of C++ strikes back with Safe C++ blueprintwww.theregister.com cmeerw ( @cmeerw@programming.dev ) C++@programming.devEnglish • edit-21 month ago message-square36fedilinkcross-posted to: programming@programming.dev
minus-square Dark Arc ( @Dark_Arc@social.packetloss.gg ) linkfedilinkEnglish3•1 month 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-square FizzyOrange ( @FizzyOrange@programming.dev ) linkfedilink5•1 month 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-square Dark Arc ( @Dark_Arc@social.packetloss.gg ) linkfedilinkEnglish2•edit-21 month 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.