Re:#include <rules>
by tsimionescu on Sunday February 04, 2024 @10:16AM
(#39250804)
> it is a far more modern and less dangerous language than most people think.
I think the opposite tends to be true. C++ is a more dangerous language than most people think, and many who see some nice new constructs end up with a false sense of security. In any major C++ project you will sooner rather than later find pieces that don't strictly respect all of the rules of modern C++, that end up accidentally invoking UB, and that will happily pass code review and de testing before blowing up when something else changes.
People tend to believe they can write safe C++, but outside constrained environments (similar to MISRA C) , this has not been proven true in practice.
I think the opposite tends to be true. C++ is a more dangerous language than most people think, and many who see some nice new constructs end up with a false sense of security. In any major C++ project you will sooner rather than later find pieces that don't strictly respect all of the rules of modern C++, that end up accidentally invoking UB, and that will happily pass code review and de testing before blowing up when something else changes.
People tend to believe they can write safe C++, but outside constrained environments (similar to MISRA C) , this has not been proven true in practice.