←back to thread

In Defense of C++

(dayvster.com)
185 points todsacerdoti | 1 comments | 16 Sep 25 19:40 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
alkonaut ◴[17 Sep 25 07:02 UTC] No.45272708[source]▶
> Yes, C++ can be unsafe if you don’t know what you’re doing. But here’s the thing: all programming languages are unsafe if you don’t know what you’re doing.

I think this is one of the worst (and most often repeated arguments) about C++. C and C++ are inherently unsafe in ways that trip up _all_ developers even the most seasoned ones, even when using ALL the modern C++ features designed to help make C++ somewhat safer.

replies(2): >>45273179 #>>45276144 #
1. llogiq ◴[17 Sep 25 14:19 UTC] No.45276144[source]▶
The problem with C++ vs. unsafety is that there is really no boundary: All code is by default unsafe. You will need to go to great lengths to make it all somewhat safe, and then to even greater lengths to ensure any libraries you use won't undermine your safety.

In Rust, if you have unsafe code, the onus is on you to ensure its soundness at the module level. And yes, that's harder than writing the corresponding C++, but it makes the safe code using that abstraction a lot easier to reason about. And if you don't have unsafe code (which is possible for a lot of problems), you won't need to worry about UB at all. Imagine never needing to keep all the object lifetimes in your head because the compiler does it for you.