Maybe this time could be used to consider memory safety much more seriously.

EDIT: Would love to know why people are so angry about that?

SolarNet 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The issue that caused this to be voted down is often seen as a memory safety solution (not something I personally 100% agree with, but thats a broad view). And the rest of this release includes other memory safety work. And it was voted down and delayed for apparent political reasons (again not a view I agree with).

So most people will read your view as hypocritical/misinformed.

	▲	MBCook 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It could also be read as a straight up attack. Basically, a way of saying “why not follow Rust“ without having to say the word Rust. I think it was a fair question. As someone who doesn’t follow C++ I really don’t know what else was in the proposal. It’s nice to hear there is memory safety stuff.

▲

stopwatchstring an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[dead]

▲

GalaxyNova 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Memory safety was solved in 1959 with the invention of lisp