undefined | Better HN

0 pointsuecker8mo ago0 comments

After wasting many hours of my life debugging C++ code, before switching to C, I disagree. The simplicity and explicitness of C is underappreciated.

0 comments

pjmlp8mo ago

If only it came along with a security mindset, unfortunately 50 years aren't enough to change language culture.

ueckerOP8mo ago

As if C++ had a security mindset:

void foo(std::vector<int> &x) { x[4] = 1; }

int main() { std::vector<int> x{ 0, 1, 3, }; foo(x); std::cout << x[4]; }

pjmlp8mo ago

The difference being that all C++ compilers have an option to enable bounds checking on operator[]().

Additionally, until C++26, the way the standard is written, the legalese doesn't forbid the implementation to do bounds checking.

Now can you please enlighten us how to do the same with C arrays and strings, with bounds checking enabled, and why in 50 years WG14 has completely ignored the problem, including Dennis Ritchie proposal for fat pointers, until the government and industry pressure, and even now, I am quite curious if C2y will really bring any actual improvement.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

pjmlp8mo ago

If only it came along with a security mindset, unfortunately 50 years aren't enough to change language culture.

ueckerOP8mo ago

As if C++ had a security mindset:

void foo(std::vector<int> &x) { x[4] = 1; }

int main() { std::vector<int> x{ 0, 1, 3, }; foo(x); std::cout << x[4]; }

pjmlp8mo ago

The difference being that all C++ compilers have an option to enable bounds checking on operator[]().

Additionally, until C++26, the way the standard is written, the legalese doesn't forbid the implementation to do bounds checking.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse