@cmeerw@programming.dev to C++@programming.devEnglish • edit-21 month agoThe empire of C++ strikes back with Safe C++ blueprintwww.theregister.comexternal-linkmessage-square38fedilinkarrow-up138arrow-down12cross-posted to: programming@programming.devhackernews@lemmy.bestiver.se
arrow-up136arrow-down1external-linkThe empire of C++ strikes back with Safe C++ blueprintwww.theregister.com@cmeerw@programming.dev to C++@programming.devEnglish • edit-21 month agomessage-square38fedilinkcross-posted to: programming@programming.devhackernews@lemmy.bestiver.se
minus-square@FizzyOrange@programming.devlinkfedilink6•1 month agoIt’s not moot. The Safe C++ is opt-in to safety. It has to be because otherwise it wouldn’t be compatible with existing C++.
minus-squareDark ArclinkfedilinkEnglish-3•edit-21 month agoThat’s a laudable difference /s. Using Rust is also an “opt-in” option.
It’s not moot. The Safe C++ is opt-in to safety. It has to be because otherwise it wouldn’t be compatible with existing C++.
That’s a laudable difference /s. Using Rust is also an “opt-in” option.