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.
3
3
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
I think it bites off more than it can chew. It's great to do things like zero copy parsing with string views when you actually have memory safe, but it's horrifying in C++. It would be horrifying in C too but I don't see people doing this kind of stuff pervasively.
1
1
C++ lets people use super dangerous abstractions in a way that looks very clean and safe. A lot of modern C++ is extremely dangerous despite seeming very high level and concise. It just isn't suited for the code styles that people are using (lots of closures, iterators, etc.).
Some parts though are actual huge improvement over C. uniq_ptr for example, it's actually is zero (runtime) cost adds to clarity, adds to safety, and it's hard to be as optimized (e.g., allocate for ptr and data once for shared_ptr).
1
Except that unique_ptr is still completely unsafe due to use-after-free via references, use-after-move and null pointer dereferences. Avoiding memory leaks is a separate thing from memory safety. Implicit destruction in a language without memory safety encourages use-after-free.
1
Show replies