Hacker News Reader

Of course. The point is that (IF there is enough interest in the idea) these rules are simple enough (in particular, they're inherently local, i.e. don't require analysis to go beyond one single function) to be enforced by a tool (say, built on top of Clang-tidy).

By that measure Rust would be unsafe since it hopes that the authors don't just put everything in unsafe blocks.

I don't think anyone claimed the _language_ was safe.

Title: "A Usable C++ Dialect That Is Safe Against Memory Corruption".

Any questions?

The author claims that the rules described, "extending" the standard C++, are enforcing memory corruption, and it is this author described subset that is still unsafe, not C++ in general. Think about english vs. americanized english, largely the same, but two distinct entities.

In C++, you are free to shoot yourself in the foot. In Rust, you have a Government inspector ensure that you always point the gun not just in a "safe" direction, but only toward a crosshair target at a designated gun range.