Weird this got downvoted since this is a big deal.
The default matters. So long as the language makes it easy to write unsafe code, people will do it and there will be security bugs.
The default matters. So long as the language makes it easy to write unsafe code, people will do it and there will be security bugs.
You can upgrade your compiler to version A. It produces safe code. It also produces 500kB of error messages for each of your source files. You will not ship any new builds until you fix all of them.
Or you can pick version B. It compiles all your code with only few errors. It also supports opting-in to multiple safety features.
If your salary depends on your software project, which will you pick?
That‘s the reason for all the problems in the first place.
But this would break backwards compatibility and the C++people do not want that.
An unsafe-by-default language that has some safety features isn't enough to fix memory safety.
Memory safety is something which can be solved though, which is what memory safe languages do. Of course, Rust is only an incremental improvement because of unsafe.
Unless you are doing something obscure like testing shotgun-proof footwear, it is a good idea to have an automated system tell you: "ERROR: You are shooting your foot, do not aim at your foot with a shotgun and fire on line 123".
The C and C++ philosophy starts with the premise "programmers know best and will never aim a shotgun at their foot and then fire, that makes no sense haha, why are you talking to me about that? you are silly!". Yet, there are millions of people getting shot in the foot every year and it took a new language to demonstrate that the entire class of nonsense can be prevented.
That's absolutely not the C/C++ philosophy. The C philosophy (I lost track of whatever the C++ philosophy is supposed to be several versions back) is that it's a mid-level language and lets you have pretty low-level access to the machine. With that comes the need for great caution, much like working in assembly.
It's not premised on the idea that programmers are infallible at all, but on the idea that code-checking and correctness is to be done through process rather than the language itself.
while it is not explicitly written out like this anymore, the standard charter used to say
> Trust the programmer.
> Don't prevent the programmer from doing what needs to be done.
for 30 something years, which sounds similar to what the other poster said.
The current charter[1] only says "Allow programming freedom" which I'd still interpret to mean something similar.
1: https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n3280.htm
(edited due to formatting messups)