here is your memory safe language bro. why can't we just stick with c++20 ?safe enough without being a pita
>>106987788Generics are gay and retarded and look horrible in every language that supports themJust overload the function like a normal person
We already solver the problem with memory safety. What we have now is not memory safety but rather memory safety in high level languages where no one is able to understand a single line of what is being written.I tried Rust and i got filtered by it so im sticking with C plus classes
>>106987788memory safety is a memeyou want to make the memory as unsafe as possible to performancemaxx
>>106987861that code compiles, but it results in completely undefined behavior. in safe rust btw.it highlights a core flaw in the type system >>106987877that's true. more than half of c's speed is from UB, ironically
>>106987865Working on it. ;)
>>106987865>>106988156My programming language is not only memory safe (without requiring lifetime annotations), but also is resource safe, you can enforce the correct use of an API with minimal annotations, think of this as an effect system or design by contract but using a more semantic approach and without runtime overhead.
>>106987788Holy shitwho can look at that syntax without killing himself
>>106987788>why can't we just stick with c++20 ?This was your opportunity to suggest a solution (like linear types) instead of introducing another problem
A & what a<T> what
>>106987788So what does this program do? I'm a no coder, but I'm 140 IQ intellectual. Any explainers?
>>106989308Bump
>>106989308Use-after-free exploit in safe Rust. Something that shouldn't really compile but apparently does?
>>106989561lmao
is it really that hard to not go out of bounds on an array? why can't zoomers into arrays?
