The safety part in this article is incorrect. There's a google doc somewhere where Google did an internal experiment and determined that safety c annot be achieved in C++ without an owning reference (essentially what Rust has).
replies(1):
Maybe we're thinking of different things, but I don't think C++ has owning references, modern or not? There's regular references (&) which are definitely not owning, and owning pointers (unique_ptr and friends), but neither of those quite match Rust's &.
Here's the document I believe your parent is referring to: https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vSt2VB1zQAJ6JDMa...
The claim in the article:
> Yes, C++ can be made safer; in fact, it can even be made memory safe.
The claim from this document:
> We attempted to represent ownership and borrowing through the C++ type system, however the language does not lend itself to this. Thus memory safety in C++ would need to be achieved through runtime checks.
It doesn't use "owning reference" anywhere.
However, I also got confused, and just subsituted "pointer" for "reference" in my head. References, apart from smart pointers, are indeed a problem for memory safety.