▲ | tialaramex 7 months ago | ||||||||||||||||
I suspect the best case scenario is a "Stone soup". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_Soup The fantasy is enough to get engagement and once you have engagement you can persuade people to do a "little" extra work to get the full benefits. My mother won't buy the product for $5, but if you tell her that it costs $10 but they're 2-for-1 today, she's going to buy that and feel like she got a bargain. In terms of actually solving the problem well, it's not even captured in these hypothetical regulatory requirements. What you actually want is a safety culture, Rust has one, C++ does not, and no technology will change that. From what I can tell nobody at WG21 wants that to change anyway. | |||||||||||||||||
▲ | zozbot234 7 months ago | parent | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||
> What you actually want is a safety culture, Rust has one Rust has a safety culture because it involves requirements for Safe Rust that preserve safety while also playing well with modularity and iterative development. If "Safe C++" can enforce similar requirements, we can expect that a safety culture can be sustained there as well. | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
▲ | pjmlp 7 months ago | parent | prev [-] | ||||||||||||||||
If you have access to the WG21 meeting minutes, it appears the safety discussions of the last meeting were quite entertaining. | |||||||||||||||||
|