| ▲ | sunshowers 4 days ago |
| So you agree that modern C++ adds new ways to introduce memory unsafety? |
|
| ▲ | fluoridation 4 days ago | parent [-] |
| Your question is too broad. I'd have to think about it, but intuitively I'd say no, I don't agree with that. More to the point, lambdas don't introduce any new avenues for memory bugs. Like I said, at the worst they trick inexperienced programmers coming from garbage-collected languages into thinking the platform will deal with lifetimes for them. |
| |
| ▲ | sunshowers 4 days ago | parent [-] | | The person who introduced the bug was highly competent and had at least 10 years of C++ experience. He was sure he'd gotten it right and himself didn't believe how subtle the bug turned out to be. The people coming from GC languages have the right expectations about the language taking care of lifetimes for them. I expect nothing less than technical excellence from my tooling. | | |
| ▲ | fluoridation 4 days ago | parent [-] | | To clarify, I'm not interested in debating the skills of any particular programmer. My sole point is that lambdas didn't bring any new ways of mismatching lifetimes. That programmer could have made the exact same mistake with a functor instead and it wouldn't have changed anything. >I expect nothing less than technical excellence from my tooling. Good luck with that. | | |
| ▲ | sunshowers 4 days ago | parent [-] | | I've been having great luck expecting technical excellence from Rust and its community, thank you! |
|
|
|
