The title has potential to be a bit misleading, because as the article says, while Sean Baxter's proposal is not being continued, the committee is working on the Profiles proposal, which still will enable some level of safety. So C++ is still working towards safety, just not the Safe C++ safety.

▲

loeg 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

Seems clear enough to me. The "Safe C++" proposal is not being continued. Profiles is not what was proposed in "Safe C++."

	▲	pessimizer 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		The quotes you have added are not in the title, and they would of course make it less ambiguous.

▲

TimorousBestie 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

C++ is working towards safety with the same enthusiasm with which I tackle AI-generated merge requests.

▲

TinkersW 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Hardware level safety will arrive first(see Apple support for Memory Integrity Enforcement ), not as fool proof as SafeC++/Rust but no need to change code...

	▲	pjmlp 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		It has been already here since 2015 on Solaris SPARC.

▲

coffeeaddict1 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

The safety story with Profiles is rather basic (almost laughable honestly) and hardly any improvement over what was already achievable with compiler flags and clang-tidy.