this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2024
2 points (100.0% liked)

C++

2040 readers
2 users here now

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

Rules

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] nous@programming.dev 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Just because a feature was not rolled out in the mid-90s would that mean that it’s not available today?

Adding a feature is one thing, C++ has added a lot of memory safety features over the years. The problem with C++ is it still allows a lot of unsafe ways of working with memory that previous projects used and people still use now. Removing support for these features will break existing code and piss a lot of people off in the process. It is not about adding new features, but removing the unsafe existing features that they are talking about here.

[–] lysdexic@programming.dev 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

The problem with C++ is it still allows a lot of unsafe ways of working with memory that previous projects used and people still use now.

Why do you think this is a problem? We have a tool that gives everyone the freedom to manage resources the way it suits their own needs. It even went as far as explicitly supporting garbage collectors right up to C++23. Some frameworks adopted and enforced their own memory management systems, such as Qt.

Tell me, exactly why do you think this is a problem?

[–] GetOffMyLan@programming.dev -1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

All the use after free and buffer overflow bugs that plague our key infrastructure.

[–] FizzyOrange@programming.dev 0 points 9 months ago (2 children)

It's not just that. Debugging segfaults and UB can be an absolute nightmare.

The C++ committee still haven't learnt their lesson. I recently learnt about C++20 coroutines, which are pretty neat, if complex (there are pretty much no good learning resources about them). However they are still putting unnecessary UB footguns in it.

[–] sukhmel@programming.dev 1 points 9 months ago

Reminds me of how I found some safety measures to be in China some years back, basically those were signs saying "plz don't fall to your death, if you do it's your fault"

[–] bufalo1973@lemmy.ml 1 points 8 months ago

Maybe a "pragma strict" where every deprecated is an error and not a warning?