I think there is indeed a lack of commitment. Thanks to capitalism and therefore production deadlines. Well, given, you can't always catch "all" potential bugs, not just memory related issues. That's sometimes not even theoretically possible. But it's no secret how software quality increases by testing it thouroughly. And a lot of the time I just don't see that happening. I've worked at institutions where software tests were done by answering the question "does it compile and run?". And I've experienced systematic tests with specialized test engineers, who still had to cut short a lot of the time. But to assume that software is always tested well enough is in my experience naive.
Read all your other comments man!
This is not helpful. If you have critique, be more specific. I know what I've written.
I am always open to discussion and changing my views if I see convincing arguments, as I did at another place here. Your lack of patience and quick judgement of my character is not my fault, but yours. I was discussing the issues here neutrally with you so far.
However, this topic is done for me anyway, as the discussions here did indeed change my view regarding memory safety in C++.
Simpler said than done. Of course I agree with you, but we need deeper changes in our society, in our behaviour as people. If you get told time and time again, that you're worthless, can't achieve anything etc. that's going to leave a mark. Sure, encouraging to not let that dominate one's thoughts is a useful skill. But it shouldn't be necessary in the first place.
The definition of "a memory safe programming language" is not in debate at all in the programming community.
Yes, my mistake. I'm sorry.
This is incredibly arrogant, and, tbh, ignorant.
You've willingly ignored the remaining part of that context, where I explicitly admitted problems in common usage. It was not my intention to come across as arrogant.
there is no language construct in place to protect from these trivial memory safety issues
Depending on what you mean by "language constructs": there are, e.g. RAII or smart pointers. But they aren't enforced. So it's correct to say that C++ is inherently memory unsafe due to the lack of such enforcements. The discussions here changed my opinion about that.
You've missed the context. There are occasions in Rust where you have to use more boilerplate code which you wouldn't have to implement in C++ to that extent.
But saying that C++ is free of boilerplate is of course ridiculous, if you are not able to heavily leverage templates, CRTPs, macros and alike.
I'm not. But in my experience, using memory safe programming patterns, classes and possibly additional testing and analasys tools do the job quite well.
But yeah. I changed my mind about this memory-safety-property. The lack of enforcement really does make C++ inherently memory unsafe.
You're right. Thanks for the links. Although I still think that C++ provides the tools to enable memory-safe programming, I guess the lack of enforcement makes it inherently memory-unsafe.
This is incorrect. If you properly test your code such errors will become visible. It's not too much of an ask to conduct systematic software testing. You should do it anyway regardless of the language used.
you are really thinking that you are the perfect coder who jever makes any mistakes. It does not make sense to argue with you
You are quick with being judgemental and ignoring the rest of what I said in that part, which is why I agree with you. This discussion is no longer productive.
Zacryon @ Zacryon @feddit.org Posts 0Comments 436Joined 1 yr. ago
I think there is indeed a lack of commitment. Thanks to capitalism and therefore production deadlines. Well, given, you can't always catch "all" potential bugs, not just memory related issues. That's sometimes not even theoretically possible. But it's no secret how software quality increases by testing it thouroughly. And a lot of the time I just don't see that happening. I've worked at institutions where software tests were done by answering the question "does it compile and run?". And I've experienced systematic tests with specialized test engineers, who still had to cut short a lot of the time. But to assume that software is always tested well enough is in my experience naive.
This is not helpful. If you have critique, be more specific. I know what I've written.
I am always open to discussion and changing my views if I see convincing arguments, as I did at another place here. Your lack of patience and quick judgement of my character is not my fault, but yours. I was discussing the issues here neutrally with you so far.
However, this topic is done for me anyway, as the discussions here did indeed change my view regarding memory safety in C++.