When NIST released its summary judgement against C++ and other languages it deemed memory unsafe, the problem became less technical and more about politics and perception. If you're looking to work within two arms' length of the US Government, you have to consider the "written in C++" label seriously, regardless of how correct the code may be.

▲

jandrewrogers 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

Nothing is going to happen for the foreseeable future, at least in the parts of government I tend to work with. It doesn't even come up in discussions of critical high-reliability system. They are still quite happy to buy and use C++, so I expect that is what they will be getting.

▲

Jtsummers 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The government is still happily commissioning new software projects that use C++. That may change in a few years, and some organizations may already be treating C++ more critically, but so far it's been unimpactful.

▲

gpderetta 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

At some point the US government required ADA for all new development.

Yet here we are.

	▲	Jtsummers 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		ADA is still the law, but, yes, Ada the language was mandated for 5 or 6 years and everyone got waivers for it anyways. A big difference between the Ada mandate and this current push is that the current effort is not to go to one language, but to a different category of languages (specifically, "memory safe" or ones with stronger guarantees of memory safety). That leaves it much more open than the Ada mandate did. This would be much more palatable for contractors compared to the previous mandate.