mox@lemmy.sdf.org to Programming@programming.dev · 2 years agoThe empire of C++ strikes back with Safe C++ proposalwww.theregister.comexternal-linkmessage-square2linkfedilinkarrow-up10arrow-down10
arrow-up10arrow-down1external-linkThe empire of C++ strikes back with Safe C++ proposalwww.theregister.commox@lemmy.sdf.org to Programming@programming.dev · 2 years agomessage-square2linkfedilink
minus-squareEphera@lemmy.mllinkfedilinkarrow-up0·2 years 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…