The case for "100% Safe C++" is that you might be able to annotate that old C++98 code in ways that don't otherwise alter its semantics, but still ensure safety. That would be a one-time cost that might be well-worth paying if the cost is low enough - Where "cost" depends on developer experience as opposed to mere volume of annotations. A "viral" compiler feature that auto-surfaces all the places that will need annotation for a given level of safety has the potential to be quite easy to learn and use effectively. It's not clear why the C++ folks are rejecting that approach, seemingly out-of-hand.

▲

bluGill 7 months ago | parent [-]

I have > 10 million lines of C++ that is not annotated. There are many projects much larger than mine. If you cannot automatically annotate the code there is no point in trying as you can't do it manually. If you can automate it why not just build that into the compiler and skip the syntax?

▲

zozbot234 7 months ago | parent [-]

> If you cannot automatically annotate the code there is no point in trying as you can't do it manually.

How can you know this without a "viral" analysis that tells you how much annotation is needed, and where? Perhaps the code factors out all the low-level, "memory unsafe" hacks to its own module, and that can be feasibly annotated. It's just not something we can know in advance.

	▲	usefulcat 7 months ago \| parent [-]
		> Perhaps the code factors out all the low-level, "memory unsafe" hacks to its own module, and that can be feasibly annotated. While it is theoretically not impossible for that scenario to occur, I'd say it sounds wildly unlikely for anything that can be descried as 'old' code.