36

The empire of C++ strikes back with Safe C++ blueprint(www.theregister.com)

posted
*
by
Avatar
cmeerw@programming.dev
in
Avatar
cpp@programming.dev
39 comments
hidereport
Sort:
HotTopControversialNewOld
You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
Avatar
Dark Arc@social.packetloss.gg
-3 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
Avatar
FizzyOrange@programming.dev
6 points

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++.

permalink
report
parent
reply
Avatar
Dark Arc@social.packetloss.gg
-3 points
*

That’s a laudable difference /s. Using Rust is also an “opt-in” option.

permalink
report
parent
reply

C++

!cpp@programming.dev

Create post

The center for all discussion and news regarding C++.

Rules

  • Respect instance rules.
  • Don’t be a jerk.
  • Please keep all posts related to C++.

Community stats

  • 24

    Monthly active users

  • 260

    Posts

  • 516

    Comments

Community moderators