[safercplusplus]

Right. And of course there are still less-performance-sensitive C/C++ applications (curl, postfix, git, etc.) that could have memory-safe release versions.

But the point is also to dispel the conventional wisdom that C/C++ is necessarily intrinsically unsafe. It's a tradeoff between safety, performance and flexibility/compatibility. And you don't necessarily need to jump to a completely different language to get a different tradeoff.

Fil-C sacrifices some performance for safety and compatibility. The traditional compilers sacrifice some safety for performance and flexibility/compatibility. And scpptool aims to provide the option of sacrificing some flexibility for safety and performance. (Along with the other two tradeoffs available in the same program). The claim is that C++ turns out to be expressive enough to accommodate the various tradeoffs. (Though I'm not saying it's always gonna be pretty :)

[eru]

Even with UB holes plugged, C (and C++) are still unsafe, because there are many assumptions you might want to make that you can not encode in the language.

To get an example that's easy to understand: before the introduction of the 'const' keyword, you just couldn't express that some variable should never be changed. And no amount of UB sanitisers would have fixed this for you: you just couldn't express the concept. There's lots of other areas of these languages that are still in a similar state.

Eg there's no way to express that a function should be pure, ie not have side effects (but is allowed to use mutation internally).

[safercplusplus]

Yeah, but C++ now supports "user-defined" annotations which effectively allow you to add the equivalent of any keyword you need, right? (Even if it's not the prettiest syntax.) For example, the scpptool static analyzer supports (and enforces) lifetime annotations with similar meaning to Rust's lifetime annotations.

I believe gcc actually does support `__attribute__ ((pure))` to indicate function purity. (I assume it doesn't actually enforce it, but presumably it theoretically could at some point.)