Ah yes, I love how C++ is has so little boilerplate. Sometimes I can even write several statements in a row without any!
lolcatnip
joined 2 years 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.
It's the only operating system with that much market share to lose.
I'm very experienced with C++and I still feel like I'm juggling chainsaws every time I use it. And I've personally run into into things like use after free errors while working in Chromium. It's a massive codebase full of multithreading, callbacks, and nonlocal effects. Managing memory may be easy in a simple codebase but it's a nightmare in Chromium. Tools like AddressSanitizer are a routine part of Chrome development for exactly that reason. And people who think memory management is easy in C++ are precisely the people I expect to introduce a lot of bugs.
This. Simply removing people of s certain ethnicity from a region without otherwise hurting them is ethnic cleansing but not genocide. It's still a crime against humanity, mostly, IMHO, because the "without otherwise hurting them" part rarely if ever happens.
Non-elected illegal white immigrant.
Checkmate, atheists!
He seems quite fond of little Kevlar.
I'm so tired of the "overpopulation is a eugenicist talking point" argument. Just because a group of nasty people see a potential problem and propose inhumane solutions for it doesn't mean the problem itself isn't real. There's nothing unethical about acknowledging that an ecosystem can only support a certain quantity of an organism in a sustainable way. If people are allowed to pursue their natural desire to have a comfortable lifestyle, the world can't sustain the population we have. Regardless of what anyone wants, some combination of three things will happen:
- The human population will decrease dramatically.
- The average standard of living will decrease dramatically.
- We discover ways to dramatically improve the standard of living that can be maintained in a sustainable way.
Most people focus on #3, but I see no way, in timeframe we have available, to even come close to achieving what's needed to prevent a total ecological collapse that way. We're on track to see 1 and 2 happen. The only people who make it through relatively unscathed will be the ones with the most access to resources (i.e. wealth), so by allowing wealth inequality to exist, we're effectively choosing to cull the poor, which is not meaningfully different from eugenics. But without extreme authoritarian measures, we also can't stop people from trying to improve their lifestyles in unsustainable ways. OTOH there are mountains of evidence showing that, just by educating women and letting them have bodily autonomy, we can completely halt population growth.
I fear it's too late, though for that to save us, because the world population is already far too big. We probably can't convince enough people to stop reproducing to bring the population down fast enough, and even if we could, it would cause a demographic collapse where they're aren't enough young people to support the elderly population.
In short, I think we're fucked, but it would be really nice if the survivors would remember that we got here in part through unchecked population growth, and that it could be prevented from happening again by people voluntarily limiting their reproduction. We as a species are remarkably resistant to leaning though, so I didn't have high hopes on that front either.
It's very relevant. Wars are still mostly fought by troops on the ground, and you have to be able to get them to the place you want to invade. About the only other option is to try to physically destroy a hostile country with nuclear weapons, but that's pretty much guaranteed to be disastrous for all parties involved.
Before or after they put boots on the ground to "liberate America from liberal tyranny"?
Right, defending allies is sooo edgy.
No. Just stop. If a language depends on the expertise of the developer to be free of memory bugs, then by definition, it is not memory safe because memory safety means such bugs are impossible by design. Quit trying to redefine what memory safety means. A program being free of memory bugs does not in any way imply memory safety.