Any form of highly restricted communication prevents meaningful discussions as it’s incapable of of capturing the complexity of most topics.

That’s why I’ve never used Twitter and only forum-like platforms, like Lemmy now.

There are too many assholes in positions of power.

It also raises the question whether it’s a perfect teleport or one that modifies you. While you might be willing to pull the lever before jumping into the teleport, you might not be afterwards.

4 servings: 500 g
1 serving: 500 g
3 servings: 500 g

I always cook the whole package. I can eat leftovers later or make some new dish out of it the next day.

“ruined” in the eyes of the ones. “Upgraded” in the eyes of others.

Taste in art is highly individual as can be seen here again.

Why the hate against TAA?

Zangendeutsch ist v.a. auf ich_iel sehr weit verbreitet, dem Hauptinkubator deutschsprachiger Memes auf Lemmy.

Getting your finger bitten off by a person who is wearing a lot of make-up? Pls explain, I’m not a biologist. /j

Do you drink a soup or do you eat it?

Ditch Google trash. Go for alternatives. E.g., Firefox instead of Chrome.

Nah. Push them out like rabbits do with their babies. Let them fight and see which ones prevail!

It’s for people who suffer from severe anxiety when they see stuff like: -> or * for example. /j

Nobody tests their shit well enough nowadays!

I think there is indeed a lack of commitment. Thanks to capitalism and therefore production deadlines. Well, given, you can’t always catch “all” potential bugs, not just memory related issues. That’s sometimes not even theoretically possible. But it’s no secret how software quality increases by testing it thouroughly. And a lot of the time I just don’t see that happening. I’ve worked at institutions where software tests were done by answering the question “does it compile and run?”. And I’ve experienced systematic tests with specialized test engineers, who still had to cut short a lot of the time. But to assume that software is always tested well enough is in my experience naive.

Read all your other comments man!

This is not helpful. If you have critique, be more specific. I know what I’ve written.

I am always open to discussion and changing my views if I see convincing arguments, as I did at another place here. Your lack of patience and quick judgement of my character is not my fault, but yours. I was discussing the issues here neutrally with you so far.

However, this topic is done for me anyway, as the discussions here did indeed change my view regarding memory safety in C++.

No, but it’s a first class carcinogenic.

The definition of “a memory safe programming language” is not in debate at all in the programming community.

Yes, my mistake. I’m sorry.

This is incredibly arrogant, and, tbh, ignorant.

You’ve willingly ignored the remaining part of that context, where I explicitly admitted problems in common usage. It was not my intention to come across as arrogant.

there is no language construct in place to protect from these trivial memory safety issues

Depending on what you mean by “language constructs”: there are, e.g. RAII or smart pointers. But they aren’t enforced. So it’s correct to say that C++ is inherently memory unsafe due to the lack of such enforcements. The discussions here changed my opinion about that.

Yupp. I’ve changed my stance on this.

Since C++ doesn’t enforce memory safe programming paradigms, it is inherently memory unsafe.

You’ve missed the context. There are occasions in Rust where you have to use more boilerplate code which you wouldn’t have to implement in C++ to that extent.

But saying that C++ is free of boilerplate is of course ridiculous, if you are not able to heavily leverage templates, CRTPs, macros and alike.

Yes. I stopped now. I was hinted towards the usual definition of memory safe languages at another point in this discussion.

Although it is perfectly possible to write memory safe code in C++, I agree that the lack of enforcement makes it inherently unsafe.

No. I changed my mind just very recently throughout this discussion.

I agree now that the lack of enforcement of memory safe techniques in C++ makes it inherently memory-unsafe.

That doesn’t change the fact though that it’s possible to write memory safe code, if you know what you’re doing, use the right patterns, classes etc…

I’m not. But in my experience, using memory safe programming patterns, classes and possibly additional testing and analasys tools do the job quite well.

But yeah. I changed my mind about this memory-safety-property. The lack of enforcement really does make C++ inherently memory unsafe.