•  lysdexic   ( @lysdexic@programming.dev ) 
    link
    fedilink
    English
    9
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    From the article.

    Josh Aas, co-founder and executive director of the Internet Security Research Group (ISRG), which oversees a memory safety initiative called Prossimo, last year told The Register that while it’s theoretically possible to write memory-safe C++, that’s not happening in real-world scenarios because C++ was not designed from the ground up for memory safety.

    That baseless claim doesn’t pass the smell check. Just because a feature was not rolled out in the mid-90s would that mean that it’s not available today? Utter nonsense.

    If your paycheck is highly dependent on pushing a specific tool, of course you have a vested interest in diving head-first in a denial pool.

    But cargo cult mentality is here to stay.

    •  lad   ( @sukhmel@programming.dev ) 
      link
      fedilink
      English
      132 months ago

      I think, the idea was along the lines of “because C++ was not memory-safe, and it has to stay compatible with how it was, there are still a lot of ways to not write memory-safely”

      This makes sense, there are memory-safely features available but there are a lot of programmers that will never willingly use that features, because the olden ways are surely better

      Other than that, I agree, when you’re paid to fix an unfixable problem you will probably claim something like that and advocate for your solution being the only one that solves this

        •  lad   ( @sukhmel@programming.dev ) 
          link
          fedilink
          English
          32 months ago

          If you want everyone to stop trying to shove Rust everywhere, just use smart pointers more. I may somehow get over Rust not replacing every other language if those languages will be safe

    •  nous   ( @nous@programming.dev ) 
      link
      fedilink
      English
      112 months ago

      Just because a feature was not rolled out in the mid-90s would that mean that it’s not available today?

      Adding a feature is one thing, C++ has added a lot of memory safety features over the years. The problem with C++ is it still allows a lot of unsafe ways of working with memory that previous projects used and people still use now. Removing support for these features will break existing code and piss a lot of people off in the process. It is not about adding new features, but removing the unsafe existing features that they are talking about here.

    • If you could reliably write memory safe code in C++, why do devs put memory safety issues intontheir code bases then?

      Even highly paid (and probably skilled) devs in the IT industry manage to mess that up pretty regularly. Even if it was: devs using memory safe languages make much fewer mistakes wrt. managing memory… so that tooling does seem to help them at least more than the C++ tooling helps the C++ devs.

    •  scratchee   ( @scratchee@feddit.uk ) 
      link
      fedilink
      English
      6
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      I think your take is a bit extreme.

      Currently their statement (regardless of the questionable justification) is largely correct, no major c++ projects have been written in a safe subset and no real work has really started yet. It isn’t practical.

      I do agree with you that a safe form of c++, once fully implemented and not frustrating to use, could easily become viable, the feature can be added. But that’s still years away from practical usage in large project, and even when done, many projects will stick to the older forms, making the transition slow and frustrating.

      The practical result is that he’s sort of right, if you just add the word “currently” to his statement.

      Otoh, I do agree with you that rust cannot be the sole answer to this problem either, it’s almost as impractical to rewrite codebases in rust as an as-yet unfinished safe form of C++. Only time and lots of effort can fix this problem

    • The only (arguably*) baseless claim in that quote is this part:

      it’s theoretically possible to write memory-safe C++

      Maybe try to write more humbly and less fanatically, since you don’t seem to be that knowledgable about anything (experienced in other threads too).

      * It’s “theoretically possible” to write memory-safe assembly if we bend contextual meanings enough.

      •  lysdexic   ( @lysdexic@programming.dev ) 
        link
        fedilink
        English
        2
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        The only (arguably*) baseless claim in that quote is this part:

        You do understand you’re making that claim on the post discussing the proposal of Safe C++ ?

        And to underline the absurdity of your claim, would you argue that it’s impossible to write a"hello, world" program in C++ that’s not memory-safe? From that point onward, what would it take to make it violate any memory constraints? Are those things avoidable? Think about it for a second before saying nonsense about impossibilities.

          • C++ offers no guaranteed memory safety.
          • A fictional safe C++ that would inevitably break backwards compatibility might as well be called Noel++, because it’s not the same language anymore.
          • If that proposal ever gets implemented (it won’t), neither the promise of guaranteed memory safety will hold up, nor any big C++ project will adopt it. Big projects don’t adopt the (rollingly defined) so-called modern C++ already, and that is something that is a part of the language proper, standardized, and available via multiple implementations.

          would you argue that it’s impossible to write a"hello, world" program in C++

          bent as expected


          This proposal is just a part of a damage control campaign. No (supposedly doable) implementation will ever see the light of day. Ping me when this is proven wrong.

    • The goal of this proposal is to advance a superset of C++ with a rigorously safe subset.

      The subset is of the proposed syntax superset. Reason being because the superset also contains explicitly unsafe syntax similar to rust.

  • While the summary + interview The Register did was decent, when you read the actual paper, the proposal is way more interesting.

    Not a fan of mut instead of just plain mutable, though.

    Also I sure hope the compiler messages for this feature won’t be like the circle examples in the proposal in the end.