mox@lemmy.sdf.org to Programming@programming.dev · 1 year agoThe empire of C++ strikes back with Safe C++ proposalwww.theregister.comexternal-linkmessage-square2fedilinkarrow-up10cross-posted to: cpp@programming.dev
arrow-up10external-linkThe empire of C++ strikes back with Safe C++ proposalwww.theregister.commox@lemmy.sdf.org to Programming@programming.dev · 1 year agomessage-square2fedilinkcross-posted to: cpp@programming.dev
minus-squareEphera@lemmy.mllinkfedilinkarrow-up0·1 year agoThe inherent problem with this kind of solution is that if you don’t break backwards compatibility, you don’t get rid off all the insecure code. And if you do break backwards compatibility, there’s not much reason to stick to C++ rather than going for Rust with its established ecosystem…
The inherent problem with this kind of solution is that if you don’t break backwards compatibility, you don’t get rid off all the insecure code.
And if you do break backwards compatibility, there’s not much reason to stick to C++ rather than going for Rust with its established ecosystem…