← Back to context

Comment by pjmlp

6 months ago

Thing is, from security point of view, if it is part of the ISO C++ PDF one can buy in Geneva, compiles with a C++ compiler in C++ mode, it is C++.

11 comments

pjmlp

Reply
androidcode  6 months ago

That argument can be applied to unsafe Rust as well. There are code reviews, coding standards and other checks for a reason.

Though, I suppose something like C++ profiles, just for modernization, might make it much easier to enforce and track that modern C++ is used.

  • pjmlp  6 months ago

    The difference is that with Rust one can prevent unsafe in the compiler build settings.

    Or any language with unsafe code blocks, which people keep forgetting also exist, while complaining about Rust, as if there isn't any other memory safe language.

    With C++ you need external tooling to disable C like code, that a large part of the community refuses to adopt.

    • androidcode  6 months ago

      Yes, so something like a modernization profile for C++ would make it easier to enforce, and would not require external tools. But it ultimately does not change that C++ is not C, and that the blog is deeply misleading. Nor does it change that Google Android source code appears to have significant issues.

      > as if there isn't any other memory safe language.

      But Rust is obviously not a memory safe programming language. Unsafe's prevalence and difficulty, no_std, and arguably also the bugs and holes in the type system of Rust that have not been fixed for many years by now, make this clear.

      6 replies →