On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 at 17:02:51 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 at 15:42:57 UTC, Ola Fosheim
Grøstad wrote:
On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 at 13:15:11 UTC, Paulo Pinto
wrote:
In general, I advocate any form of automatic memory/resource
management. With substructural type systems now being my
favorite, but they still have an uphill battle for adoption.
Are you thinking about Rust, or some other language?
All of the ones that explore this area. Rust, ATS, Idris, F*....
Also as a note, Microsoft will be discussing their proposed
C++ solution with the Rust team.
Are you thinking about more lintish tools that can give false
positives, or something with guarantees that can be a language
feature?
What Herb Sutter demoed at CppCon as compiler validation to
CoreC++.
I can imagine that depending on how well the community takes
those guidelines, they might become part of C++20.
On the other hand, on Herb's talk around 1% of the audience
acknowledged the use of static analysers. Pretty much in sync
what I see in enterprise developers.
The CppCon demos were impressive, but I'm dying to see how
Microsoft's analyser works out in real life. I've seen too many
tools with too many false positives to be useful, and I'm
sceptical that a library solution is all it takes to make C++
safe. As I asked Bjarne after his keynote, if it were that easy,
why does Rust exist?
Atila
