Comments by "George Albany" (@Spartan322) on "Travis Media" channel.

I've checked out the predecessor to the Safe C++ proposal, the Circle Compiler, it was an interesting experiment, but the proposal needs to be written to take into account the C++ standard as whats coming in C++26, and it still hasn't yet.
1
Kinda reels like nobody read what OP actually said.
1
@loc4725 He's suggesting using memory safe libraries, there are a number of such that can have you avoid memory safety issues, like there are libraries that do runtime bounds checking (even the STL has this) or that ensure pointer/reference safety, there are some libraries that also do more complex stuff at compile time, constexpr has really expanded what we can do on this front at compile time, there are a number of memory protection libraries that operate at one of many levels and are quite effective at combating the issues instead of using the C defaults, even when it comes to heap memory. Really if you're using the unsafe C behavior when we all know its unsafe, with alternatives that are safe and performant, and yet still complain about using it, that's not exactly the language fault at that point. Like the standard library and STL do solve a lot of these issues already, people just refuse to actually use the features that would've helped them.
1
@loc4725 He's suggesting using memory safe libraries, there are a number of such that can have you avoid memory safety issues, like there are libraries that do runtime bounds checking (even the STL has this) or that ensure pointer/reference safety, there are some libraries that also do more complex stuff at compile time, constexpr has really expanded what we can do on this front at compile time, there are a number of memory protection libraries that operate at one of many levels and are quite effective at combating the issues instead of using the C defaults, even when it comes to heap memory.
1
@loc4725 He's suggesting using memory safe libraries, there are a number of such that can have you avoid memory safety issues, like there are libraries that do runtime bounds checking (even the STL has this) or that ensure pointer/reference safety.
1
@loc4725 There are some libraries that also do more complex stuff at compile time, constexpr has really expanded what we can do on this front at compile time, there are a number of memory protection libraries that operate at one of many levels and are quite effective at combating the issues instead of using the C defaults, even when it comes to heap memory.
1
@loc4725 Really if you're using the unsafe C behavior when we all know its unsafe, with alternatives that are safe and performant, and yet still complain about using it, that's not exactly the language fault at that point. Like the standard library and STL do solve a lot of these issues already, people just refuse to actually use the features that would've helped them.
1