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

C++

1784 readers
5 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
[–] [email protected] -3 points 2 months ago (9 children)

Rust still allows people to do (basically) whatever they want via unsafe blocks.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Sure, but you have to explicitly enable this feature. In c++ you can use the oldest shit from twenty years ago and your compiler happily does its job. All my c++ books are full of "you shouldn’t use xy as it is deemed unsafe now, but of course you still can".

[–] [email protected] -4 points 2 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] FizzyOrange 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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++.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

That's a laudable difference /s. Using Rust is also an "opt-in" option.

load more comments (5 replies)