@cmeerw@programming.dev to C++@programming.devEnglish • edit-23 days agoThe empire of C++ strikes back with Safe C++ blueprintwww.theregister.comexternal-linkmessage-square35fedilinkarrow-up136arrow-down12
arrow-up134arrow-down1external-linkThe empire of C++ strikes back with Safe C++ blueprintwww.theregister.com@cmeerw@programming.dev to C++@programming.devEnglish • edit-23 days agomessage-square35fedilink
minus-squareDark ArclinkfedilinkEnglish-5•2 days 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@programming.devlinkfedilink5•2 days 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 ArclinkfedilinkEnglish-4•edit-22 days 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.