C++ Safety in Context
I didn’t read the (very long) appendix, but it was a good rebuttal to the stupid US gov recommendations against C and C++.
Honestly, though, I think it is just a bunch of people with some sticks up their butts hating on C and C++.
Bad code is consistently written in every language — and you can’t honestly tell me that you can write an OS or hardware driver in the alternative “safe” languages, at least without some bloat.
Honestly, though, I think it is just a bunch of people with some sticks up their butts hating on C and C++.
Bad code is consistently written in every language — and you can’t honestly tell me that you can write an OS or hardware driver in the alternative “safe” languages, at least without some bloat.
@seeplus
Thanks for you post, great to see some fight back for the BS that politicians often spout :+D
Towards the end of the appendix, Herb makes reference to cppfront https://github.com/hsutter/cppfront/
I think this will be awesome if it eventuates, because it will fix a lot of the problems C++ has with safety, and it will make it easier to use. If all the things mentioned in Herb's paper and cppfront are implemented, that will be excellent IMO.
Thanks for you post, great to see some fight back for the BS that politicians often spout :+D
Towards the end of the appendix, Herb makes reference to cppfront https://github.com/hsutter/cppfront/
I think this will be awesome if it eventuates, because it will fix a lot of the problems C++ has with safety, and it will make it easier to use. If all the things mentioned in Herb's paper and cppfront are implemented, that will be excellent IMO.
| theregister wrote: |
|---|
| The answer, Bergstrom said, was 85 percent. "That is a massive number," he said. "I could not get 85 percent of this room to agree that we like M&M's. |
Excellent !!
Yes, but those 85% merely *believe* that the code is correct. Bad wording or faith-based programming.
I have not seen rust-code yet (AFAIK), so I would trust 0% of it to be correct?
I have not seen rust-code yet (AFAIK), so I would trust 0% of it to be correct?
@keskiverto
I posted because of the comedy of not agreeing about the M&M's :+)
However I agree, it's anecdotal evidence. But I am guessing there must something that gives them that confidence, albeit if it perceived.
An experienced C++ code can look at code and be able to say: "That is robust code.". Is there something in Rust which makes it easier to come to that conclusion?
I posted because of the comedy of not agreeing about the M&M's :+)
However I agree, it's anecdotal evidence. But I am guessing there must something that gives them that confidence, albeit if it perceived.
An experienced C++ code can look at code and be able to say: "That is robust code.". Is there something in Rust which makes it easier to come to that conclusion?
Topic archived. No new replies allowed.