[alpire]

> its trivial to write memory safe C++

It is not unfortunately. That's why we see memory safety being responsible for 70% of severe vulns across many C and C++ projects.

Some of the reasons include: - C++ does little to prevent out-of-bounds vulns - Preventing use-after-free with smart pointers requires heavy use of shared pointers, which often incurs a performance cost that is unacceptable in the environment C++ is used.

[Dylan16807]

> It is not unfortunately. That's why we see memory safety being responsible for 70% of severe vulns across many C and C++ projects.

I don't think that's really a rebuttal to what they're trying to say. If the vast majority of C++ devs don't follow those two rules, then that's not much evidence against those two rules providing memory safety.

[adgjlsfhk1]

Right but the reason they don't follow those 2 rules is that using them would require not using most C++ libraries that don't follow the rules, and would introduce performance regressions that negate the main reason they chose C++ in the first place.