> Do you prefer the uncertainty of silent miscompilations and undefined behavior to upfront compiler errors?

Yes because then I don't have to spend hours writing esoteric spaghetti code to prove something to the compiler that is trivially known to be true. Your error is assuming static lifetime checking is free. As an engineer, I use judgement to make context-dependent trade offs.

If you like playing the compiler olympics, or your employer forces you to, please use Rust.

I've found that often when I am writing esoteric spaghetti rust code... I need to start thinking about what I am trying too do! Most of the time it's a bad idea :)

> As an engineer, I use judgement to make context-dependent trade offs.

Well said.

This is why i am firmly in the Stroustrup camp of backward compatibility/zero overhead/better-C/etc. goodness of "old C++". I need to extend/maintain/rewrite tons of them and that needs to be as painless as possible. The current standards trajectory needs to be maintained.

The OP article is a rather poor one with no insights but mere hoopla over nothing.

LOL; someone has definitely played with type-systems here.