431
average c++ dev (programming.dev)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/programmer_humor@programming.dev
110 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I don't think that casting a range of bits as some other arbitrary type "is a bug nobody sees coming".

C++ compilers also warn you that this is likely an issue and will fail to compile if configured to do so. But it will let you do it if you really want to.

That's why I love C++

a screenshot from linkedin reading "I don't think that casting a range of bits as some other arbitrary type "is a bug nobody sees coming". C++ compilers also warn you that this is likely an issue and will fail to compile if configured to do so. But it will *let you do it* if you really want to. That's why I love C++"
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 1 year ago (4 children)

"washing your hands isn't a guarantee that the patient isn't going to get an infection, they could get infected some other way too".

Every single doctor should know this yes.

It seems people are adding a sentence I didn't say "rust can be unsafe and thus we shouldn't try" on top of the one I did say "programmers should be aware that rust doesn't automatically mean safe".

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    Then you should probably be a little more explicit about that, because I have never, not once in my life, heard someone say "well you know wearing a seatbelt doesn't guarantee you'll survive a car crash" and not follow it up with "that's why seatbelts are stupid and I'm not going to wear one".

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    We need to stop attaching shit someone doesn't say to something they did. It makes commutating hostile and makes you an asshole.

    Edit: okay that was a bit rude. But it's so frustrating to say something and then have other people go "that means <this other thing you didn't say>!!!11!"

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago*

    I understand your frustration and I apologize for reading into your comments something you didn't mean. I, too, wish people would say what they mean and mean what they say, and that when you say something its taken to mean what you said.

    Unfortunately very often people will make a very reasonable (even factually true) point as a preamble to support something very unreasonable. If you agree with the reasonable point the person will then act like you agree with the unreasonable one. This is not only more time consuming and tiring to argue against, it also lends a great deal more credibility to the unreasonable point than it is really owed. To the uninformed reader to looks like the two sides of the argument partially agree, when nothing could be further from the truth. Its immensely frustrating to have your words used against you like this, so many people try and preempt it by jumping straight to (what they assume to be) the unreasonable point and arguing against it directly.

    This is toxic for actual discussion. It means that good faith actors have to add all sorts of qualifications and clarifications about where they stand before they say anything about anything, which is tiring in itself. But its the world that we live in. If someone makes an unqualified comment about the CO2 emissions of volcanoes in a thread about anthropogenic climate change people are going to assume that they don't think climate change is real. And, operating that way, those people will be right more often than they're wrong.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    You didn't say "programmers should be aware that rust doesn’t automatically mean safe". You said:

    People just think that applying arbitrary rules somehow makes software magically more secure...

    You then went on to mention unsafe, conflating "security" and "safety"; Rust's guarantees are around safety, not security, so it sounds like you really mean "more safe" here. But Rust does make software more safe than C++: it prohibits memory safety issues that are permitted by C++.

    You then acknowledged:

    I understand that rust forces things to be more secure

    ...which seems to be the opposite of your original statement that Rust doesn't make software "more secure". But in the same comment:

    It’s not not like there’s some guarantee that rust is automatically safe...

    ...well, no, there IS a guarantee that Rust is "automatically" (memory) safe, and to violate that safety, your program must either explicitly opt out of that "automatic" guarantee (using unsafe) or exploit (intentionally or not) a compiler bug.

    ...and C++ is automatically unsafe.

    This is also true! "Safety" is a property of proofs: it means that a specific undesirable thing cannot happen. The C++ compiler doesn't provide safety properties[1]. The opposite of "safety" is "liveness", meaning that some desirable thing does happen, and C++ does arguably provide certain liveness properties, in particular RAII, which guarantees that destructors will be called when leaving a call-stack frame.

    [1] This is probably over-broad, but I can't think of any safety properties C++ the language does provide. You can enforce your own safety properties in library code, and the standard library provides some; for instance, mutexes have safety guarantees.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent