[HN Gopher] My Reaction to Dr. Stroustrup's Recent Memory Safety...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       My Reaction to Dr. Stroustrup's Recent Memory Safety Comments
        
       Author : dagmx
       Score  : 24 points
       Date   : 2023-02-02 15:02 UTC (8 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.thecodedmessage.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.thecodedmessage.com)
        
       | favorited wrote:
       | > Besides the laughably condescending matter of calling Java
       | (which first appeared in 1995), C# (first appeared in 2000), and
       | Ruby (first appeared in 1995) "novel,"
       | 
       | I think "novel" means that they were Greenfield languages. They
       | certainly took concepts from preexisting languages (like Java's
       | "interfaces" being inspired by Objective-C's "protocols"), but
       | they didn't start their lives as "existing-language-with-X," the
       | way C++ was "C, with classes."
        
       | mbfg wrote:
       | >> While there might be 30+ years of divergence between C and
       | C++, none of C++'s so-called "progress" involved removing memory-
       | unsafe C features from C++, many of which are still in common
       | use, and many of which still make memory safety in C++ near
       | intractible
       | 
       | I think just the concept of classes, and new, help with memory
       | safety. It's harder to screw with memory with new Foo() then
       | doing a malloc and memcpying bits into a buffer. Sure it's far
       | cry from real memory safety, but i do think c++ has a bunch of
       | improvements over c in memory safety. Sure you can do all the
       | nasty bits in c++ that you could do in c, but you are carrotted
       | out of doing them most of the time.
        
       | gemstones wrote:
       | Super interesting article. Is there a word for the type of
       | software architect who pathologically excuses immediate-term
       | problems because there is a fix a long ways away? Dr.
       | Stroustroup's comments sound familiar if you've ever encountered
       | the type of person who won't engage with a problem you have now,
       | because they have a system planned for next year that makes the
       | problem go away.
        
       | david2ndaccount wrote:
       | C++ needs spatial memory safety. It can be added without greatly
       | changing the semantics of the language. Temporal memory safety is
       | much harder.
        
         | [deleted]
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2023-02-02 23:02 UTC)