GNU Coding Standards: Writing Robust Programs

Re:GNU Coding Standards: Writing Robust Programs by pjmlp on Friday June 11, 2021 @10:18AM (#27473686)

On the contrary,

- proper string and vector types (most compilers allow to enable bounds checking anyway)

- stronger rules for type conversions

- reference types for parameters

- better tooling for immutable data structures

- memory allocation primitives instead of getting sizeof wrong to malloc()

- collection library instead of reinventing the wheel in each project

- RAII

- smart pointers

- templates instead of error prone macros

- namespacing (usefull in large scale projects with prefix tricks)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:GNU Coding Standards: Writing Robust Programs by marrs on Friday June 11, 2021 @10:28AM (#27473840)

I'm more interested in the the actual statistics for security vulnerabilities found in C vs. C++ programmes, rather than theoretical benefits one language might have over the other.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:GNU Coding Standards: Writing Robust Programs by pjmlp on Friday June 11, 2021 @10:39AM (#27474002)

Any C++ vulnerabiliy caused by copy-paste compatibility with C is by definition a C vulnerabiliy.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:GNU Coding Standards: Writing Robust Programs by smhenderson on Friday June 11, 2021 @10:33AM (#27473906)

All of which were heavy enough at the time to slow programs down enough that people chose to not use them in favor of faster, more portable C.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:GNU Coding Standards: Writing Robust Programs by pjmlp on Friday June 11, 2021 @10:38AM (#27473988)

That is why Turbo Vision was written in C++ for MS-DOS, Mac OS transitioned from Object Pascal into C++ and Quake made use of Watcom C++.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:GNU Coding Standards: Writing Robust Programs by morelisp on Friday June 11, 2021 @11:49AM (#27474893)

id's engine was famously C, not C++, all the way through Quake 3.

[ Parent | on HN ]