• @BB_C
    link
    42 days ago

    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.

    • @lysdexicM
      link
      English
      -1
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      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
        link
        62 days 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.