Skip Navigation

Posts
0
Comments
436
Joined
1 yr. ago

  • Nobody tests their shit well enough nowadays!

    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++.

  • Thank you.

  • What is this?

  • Cookie-Chocolate-Bar

  • Politicians who know nothing about those subjects should have no say.

    Some ethical guidelines are very important though. We usually don't want to conduct potentially deadly experiments on humans for example.

  • Reminds me of the Epicurean Paradox:

  • Really? That's news to me.

  • No, but it's a first class carcinogenic.

  • 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.

  • Reminds me of Sabine Hossfelder, a physicist, who had made some similar experiences.

    https://youtu.be/LKiBlGDfRU8

    Proof that educated people can still be immensely stupid and be utter human trash.

  • 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.

  • Yupp. I've changed my stance on this.

    Since C++ doesn't enforce memory safe programming paradigms, it is inherently memory unsafe.

  • 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.

  • Yes. I stopped now. I was hinted towards the usual definition of memory safe languages at another point in this discussion.

    Although it is perfectly possible to write memory safe code in C++, I agree that the lack of enforcement makes it inherently unsafe.

  • No. I changed my mind just very recently throughout this discussion.

    I agree now that the lack of enforcement of memory safe techniques in C++ makes it inherently memory-unsafe.

    That doesn't change the fact though that it's possible to write memory safe code, if you know what you're doing, use the right patterns, classes etc..

  • 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.

    Point taken, I'll stop saying that.

  • does not warn anywhere

    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.

  • I hope they feel welcomed here to stick around. I've quit Reddirt in 2023 during the API exodus, came to Lemmy and never looked back.