Is modern C++ even trying to be safer than C? t.co/N4x29IrEKC
This Tweet is unavailable.
5
8
34
Conversation
Replying to
I find it to be the opposite. A lot of modern styles also encourage trying to be more efficient than the idiomatic C code with lots of dynamic allocations / copies. Most of the memory corruption bugs that I run into are in C++ despite there being about an equal amount of C code.
There's a huge difference between the result of finding the bug too. I can usually fairly quickly come to an understanding of why the memory corruption bug occurs in C. On the other hand, it's often extremely difficult to unravel what goes wrong in many layers of C++ abstraction.
1
1
3
I've found bugs involving weird C++ object oriented reference counting bugs where I've spent ages trying to resolve the issues and have yet to actually figure them out. I'm not even talking about non-deterministic issues like races. I can reproduce these 100% of the time.
1
1
Show replies
Replying to
I’ve long suspected the same too. Modern C++ adds so many new and exciting ways to get use-after-free.
6
Idiomatic C code has no allocations or copies. You're thinking of C++.
1
I'm specifically talking about modern C++ styles using lots of moves, references, iterators / ranges and more recently types like en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/string/b. A lot of effort goes into avoiding copies, including in very dangerous / fragile ways since it's not memory safe like Rust.
2
1
Show replies