this post was submitted on 30 Nov 2023
-1 points (45.5% liked)

C++

1755 readers
1 users here now

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

Rules

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
-1
The Myth of Smart Pointers (www.logikalsolutions.com)
submitted 10 months ago by lysdexic to c/cpp
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] lysdexic 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

That’s awfully reductive.

It really isn't. Otherwise there would be programming languages out there that would make it impossible to write buggy code, and there is nothing of the sort.

Tools can absolutely vary in their qualities and in their risks / benefits.

You still get bugs. This isn't up for discussion. In fact, the only difference is that somehow you assert that C++ suffers from this issue but started to backpedal when any language other than C++ is brought into the picture. That hardly sounds like a personal assertion that's grounded and well founded.

[–] 5C5C5C 2 points 10 months ago

What exactly have I backpedaled on in any of my replies?

Rust.

Rust eliminates entire categories of bugs at compile time with performance that is on par with C++ and often better.

I do get bugs in my Rust code, but do you want to know what they are? Once in a while I forget to type a ! in an if-statement. Or I accidentally type && when I meant to type ||. These mistakes are trivially caught in unit tests or with a single run of the application and easily fixed. It's also very rare for me to actually make these mistakes. Almost every single time I compile my Rust code, everything works on the first try. But I confess, once in a while one of these minor bugs slips in there.

So yes bugs are possible in every language. But there's a lot to be said about what kinds of bugs are possible, what the risks of those bugs are, and what the process of mitigating them is like. A memory corruption bug is an entirely different beast from a simple Boolean logic bug.