this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2024
36 points (95.0% liked)

C++

1777 readers
1 users here now

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

Rules

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
36
submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by cmeerw to c/cpp
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] lysdexic 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (25 children)

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.

[–] BB_C 5 points 2 months ago (3 children)

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 -1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] BB_C 7 points 2 months ago
  • 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (22 replies)