Why are C and C++ considered 'unsafe' if in the end it's the developer's fault if the code goes shit?? Does it make sense to approach RUST or is it just another meme?
>>102425206>Does it make sense to approach RUST or is it just another meme?If it actually forced you to be memory safe all the time it would make sense. It doesn't therefore it's a meme. We should reduce LOC and complexity to make better products and to spot bugs more easily instead of inventing new languages that are only safe if the developers doesn't use specific key words.
The biggest reason is that you won't notice if a general style of programming will make something somewhere very unsafe. This is particularly true when the values coming in are not controlled. If any rando can end up assigning a huge value somewhere they are not supposed to, they will eventually. Rust explicitly tells you to fix those things.
>>102425206Because they don't handhold as much as modern languages.Which is a realistics comparison when modern languages come with huge base libs and tools bundled together.C++ especially takes to long to update the language standards. Pretty much all this current criticism has been discussed for decades but came quite late in the language, the main reason "modern C++" is named as such.
