←back to thread

In Defense of C++

(dayvster.com)
185 points todsacerdoti | 2 comments | 16 Sep 25 19:40 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
MontagFTB ◴[16 Sep 25 21:49 UTC] No.45268593[source]▶
When NIST released its summary judgement against C++ and other languages it deemed memory unsafe, the problem became less technical and more about politics and perception. If you're looking to work within two arms' length of the US Government, you have to consider the "written in C++" label seriously, regardless of how correct the code may be.
replies(3): >>45268790 #>>45269088 #>>45276179 #
1. gpderetta ◴[17 Sep 25 14:21 UTC] No.45276179[source]▶
At some point the US government required ADA for all new development.

Yet here we are.

replies(1): >>45278761 #
2. Jtsummers ◴[17 Sep 25 17:25 UTC] No.45278761[source]▶
ADA is still the law, but, yes, Ada the language was mandated for 5 or 6 years and everyone got waivers for it anyways.

A big difference between the Ada mandate and this current push is that the current effort is not to go to one language, but to a different category of languages (specifically, "memory safe" or ones with stronger guarantees of memory safety). That leaves it much more open than the Ada mandate did. This would be much more palatable for contractors compared to the previous mandate.