Hacker News Reader

> memory unsafeness, can be significantly mitigated when developing with a certain modern subset of the C++ language.

Right.

> Most existing and popular databases are developed in C/C++, providing a wealth of resources and innovations we could leverage.

Right.

But two rights can make one wrong. How are you enforcing 'good part of C++' when you're interoperating with others' code?

View on HN

Encapsulation.

This is our code. That is their code. Depend only on the interface of their code and not the implementation. You can look at their code for curiosity but don't depend on the implementation of their code in our code.

Then you don't care what subset of the language their code is written in.

This fails to address the question you replied to. When "our code" is memory-safe and "their code" isn't, it's still "Our Product™" that ends up with a CVE that costs us money and reputation, because users don't care about whose code it was.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com