> No, the culture in C++ communities is that safety is something you > design in, not something the universe provides for you. This is > because C++ developers live in the real world, and it's the reason > code written in Rust is mostly astonishingly bloated, inefficient, > system-crippling junk.
Indeed but as a C++ developer I am sure you know full well that mistakes do happen. I agree with you completely about the direction of Rust but it does provide some evidence that there are those that aren't quite satisfied with the safety of C++ by default. The difference is that this additional safety instrumentation needs only be present during debug time so shouldn't even exist within the release build of some software. Unlike Rust where it is quite wasteful. > them. Your safety library may be great for students (although I'm not > convinced they wouldn't learn better by having a few catastrophic > experiences) but for real-world developers it belongs in a suite of > stuff like valgrind. The biggest issue is that often many of them wouldn't experience any catastrophic problems at all. They wouldn't even know anything was wrong with their code. It is only when I would mark it and send their binary through Valgrind it would light up like a Christmas tree! Undefined behaviour is frustrating like that ;) Best regards, Karsten _______________________________________________ gtkmm-list mailing list gtkmm-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtkmm-list
