←back to thread

In Defense of C++

(dayvster.com)
185 points todsacerdoti | 1 comments | 16 Sep 25 19:40 UTC | HN request time: 0.412s | source
Show context
jasperry ◴[16 Sep 25 21:18 UTC] No.45268190[source]▶
The author argues that if rewriting a C++ codebase in Rust makes it more memory-safe, that's not because Rust is memory-safe. What?
replies(4): >>45268492 #>>45268504 #>>45268572 #>>45268997 #
1. agentultra ◴[16 Sep 25 22:21 UTC] No.45268997[source]▶
That’s because the author thinks it’s the second system syndrome carrying the weight.

I think Rust is probably doing the majority of the work unless you’re writing everything in unsafe. And why would you? Kinda defeats the purpose.