It’s really not. It has the same flaws, some libraries that promise to avoid them (as long as you don’t hold them wrong - what every single programmer does), and lots and lots of new flaws that may come from anywhere.
That depends on how you decide which bucket something gets thrown into.
The C++ community values things like the RAII and other features that developers can use to prevent classes of bugs. When that is you yard-stick, then C and C++ are not in one bucket.
These papers are about memory safety guarantees and not much else. C and C++ are firmly in the same bucket according to this metric. So they get grouped together in these papers.
C++ is leagues above C in this regard. He’s rightly upset that they’re lumping the two together.
Bjarne’s work for safety profiles could indeed manifest in a solution that guarantees memory safety; time will tell. C++ is a moving target.
It’s really not. It has the same flaws, some libraries that promise to avoid them (as long as you don’t hold them wrong - what every single programmer does), and lots and lots of new flaws that may come from anywhere.
I use C, C++ and Rust in my dayjob.
I don’t like C++, but I disagree with your statement.
C++ has:
It’s obviously still not a fully memory safe language, but it has some perks over C. I’d still much rather be using rust (most of the time).
That depends on how you decide which bucket something gets thrown into.
The C++ community values things like the RAII and other features that developers can use to prevent classes of bugs. When that is you yard-stick, then C and C++ are not in one bucket.
These papers are about memory safety guarantees and not much else. C and C++ are firmly in the same bucket according to this metric. So they get grouped together in these papers.