While C++ doesn't help things, with a language compiler/runtime there's a problem with the "bottom turtle" of the codegen/runtime interface, which at some level requires correct coordination between the code and data structures the compiler emits and what the runtime expects
-
-
Note that there is a reasonable argument I would agree with in there, which is “we don’t care if there are occasional memory safety problems in the Swift compiler, because we don’t run it on untrusted input.”
-
The main thing I push back against is the idea that anyone can write safe C++ at scale. If you know you’re writing code that will go wrong re. memory safety on some input and you are intentionally OK with that, I can’t really argue with it.
- 19 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
I’m not saying that testing is a replacement for language guarantees. I’m acknowledging that the cost of testing C++ is higher to get the same level of assurance you’d get from a more fundamentally safe language. I think you’d agree with that
-
Agreed
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I thought the SQLite bug was in an extension that didn’t have the comprehensive suite of tests that “core” SQLite does?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Which bug is this?
- End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Again, the bug you’re talking about was not in the well tested part of SQLite, it was in an extension mostly not even written by the SQLite authors. Of course, there have been other bugs in SQLite...
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.