• Zacryon@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 days ago

    I think it boils down, how we define “memory safe”. C++ is perfectly memory safe, if you know what you’re doing. A lot of people don’t. Which is why Rust was born. that doesn’t make C++ a memory-unsafe language. It just demands more responsibility from the user. A design philosophy that comes with a lot more flexibility than Rust can offer.

    Which is fine. Both languages have their perks. But saying C++ isn’t memory safe, while Rust is, is in my opinion just plainly wrong. Besides, with “unsafe” Rust inherently already the door for memory issues.

    Modern C++ practises and dev patterns can handle most memory issues in C++ pretty easily. Consider smart pointers for example, or RAII.

    It’s not the language’s fault if it is used wrong.

    • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 days ago

      If the standard is “you know what you’re doing and never make mistakes”, then all languages are memory safe. All you’re doing is arguing against memory safety as a concept by redefining the term in such a way that it becomes meaningless.

      • Zacryon@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        Yupp. I’ve changed my stance on this.

        Since C++ doesn’t enforce memory safe programming paradigms, it is inherently memory unsafe.