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.
@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.
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?
@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?
Topic archived. No new replies allowed.