Bjarne Stroustrup’s Plan for Bringing Safety to C++ (The New Stack)

"may contain" doesn't mean "contains". This fixation on UB is partially misguided.

> That is why they are "unsafe" in Rust terms, and why the statement about `wc -l` is quite close to reality.

C/C++ static checkers/compilers don't require to mark code with "safe" or "unsafe" and don't mark code themselves ex post facto.
Rustc requires unsafe marks thus creating the illusion that close to 100% of C/C++ code is unsafe.

I'm writing toy C compiler at the moment:
* C expressions are allocated from stable container,
* expressions form AST with pointers pointing to other expressions,
* pointers to expressions are never freed,
* references and other form of pointers aren't used,
* stable container is globally destructed when program exists (which is waste of cycles but this is for later).

It is easy to verify for a human at high level (and sanitizers confirm) that there are no leaks and
there are no bugs with pointer management despite having a awful lots of pointers.