LWN: Comments on "Herb Sutter on increasing safety in C++"

Herb Sutter on increasing safety in C++

paulj — Wed, 20 Mar 2024 10:37:12 +0000

The author's replies do not seem unreasonable in any cases there. Unless you define "did not merge all of the changes" as unreasonable - which would be an unreasonable definition.

Anyway, let's leave it.

Herb Sutter on increasing safety in C++

ms-tg — Tue, 19 Mar 2024 22:10:07 +0000

Hi @paulj, I'm not the person you were responding to, but here are some examples I found by following other links, in case that makes is easier:

2019 - Originally rejected fix PRs that explain and remove UB or other soundness issues
https://github.com/actix/actix-web/pull/968
https://github.com/actix/actix-web/pull/822
https://github.com/actix/actix-web/pull/335 (note reverted after merged)

2018 - Original response to "why 100 uses of unsafe without clear documentation of safety"
https://github.com/actix/actix-web/issues/289

I make no guarantee that these are the best examples, just a few I turned up.

Also please note, for contrast, the many fixes that went in just after the maintainer transition on Jan 20 2020, e.g.
https://github.com/actix/actix-web/pull/1303
https://github.com/actix/actix-web/pull/1328

Herb Sutter on increasing safety in C++

corbet — Mon, 18 Mar 2024 18:13:14 +0000

It's a discussion that, I think, has run its useful course and beyond; perhaps we could bring it to a close, please?

Herb Sutter on increasing safety in C++

mb — Mon, 18 Mar 2024 17:16:13 +0000

> "everyone knows better how to build software,"

So? Maybe they are right?

> "nobody wants to do home work"

Also applies to the author.

> "and read docs and think a bit and very few provide any help."

Also applies to the author.
You see, the author complains about stuff that he does, too.

But it's Ok to have a different opinion.

> I have asked for an example, twice now I think, but you've not given any,

I said twice, that this has been posted already. I am not going to search the discussion threads for you.

> At least, for anyone who is not a toxic ingrate.

Do you realize that your definition of "toxic ingrate" also applies to yourself?
You are disagreeing with me and instead of going your way and forking this discussion to somewhere else, you keep on "harassing" me (by your definition) by trying to push your opinion onto me.
How rude. I am the victim. (Not really. It's called a discussion.)

Herb Sutter on increasing safety in C++

Wol — Mon, 18 Mar 2024 15:10:52 +0000

> ....congratulations, Rust is finally beginning to have to grow up and face the harsh fact that in the real world, developers will write crappy [1] code that violates any number of "cultural norms" or "best practices" [2] and there is *nothing* that can be done about it!

And the assumption that "users of Rust" are "members of the Rust community" is tenuous, in itself ...

> [2] The parallels here with TFA's "voluntary practices to improve safety in C++" are richly ironic

The important thing with Rust - and what the REAL Rust community presumably say - is that you cannot write unsafe code BY ACCIDENT.

Either (a) you have to wrap your own code in "unsafe" markers, or (b) you should KNOW whether or not you trust other peoples' code you're importing. Assuming the library author isn't lying (and in general, why should they) then you should KNOW whether their code contains unsafe blocks, and more importantly WHY.

After all, if it's acceptable to call out to C/C++, surely a bit of unsafe Rust is a drop in the ocean :-)

Cheers,
Wol

Herb Sutter on increasing safety in C++

paulj — Mon, 18 Mar 2024 15:07:48 +0000

The "death threats" were in comments - second hand stuff on forums. Not strong evidence of anything. What matters: I don't think it is disputed that the ngix author found the reaction to include sufficient abusive comments that he shut down his own project. His words, from his "post mortem" are:

"You alway face with rude and hate, everyone knows better how to build software, nobody wants to do home work and read docs and think a bit and very few provide any help. ... I started to receive complaints that docs are not updated and i have to go fix my shit. Encouraging. ... You felt betrayed after you put so much effort and then to hear all this shit comments, even if you understand that that is usual internet behavior."

https://github.com/fafhrd91/actix-web-postmortem

That is authoritative text on how the author felt. And I think we were all aware of that text before we started this discussion.

Now, your counter to this is that /his/ responses to the criticisms he received were unprofessional. I have asked for an example, twice now I think, but you've not given any, other than to claim I can find it if I look. Well, from reading around forums on this, the most heinous charge I can find levelled against the author is that he called a PoC change in a comment "boring":

http://web.archive.org/web/20200116231317/https://github....

I don't think /any/ response by an author, on their own issue tracker for their own personal project, could justify a campaign of "ostracism" (which in an online comment pretty much implies lots of toxic comments being left on various forums; from the target's own issue trackers, to reddit, etc. - i.e. abuse and bullying). I especially think that "this patch is boring" does not justify it.

The correct response is "Thanks for all your hard work on this code, and your generosity in open sourcing it - appreciate it, and I'll see about making my desired changes in my own version". Always really. At least, for anyone who is not a toxic ingrate.

If you had another comment in mind by the author, feel free to link to it.

Herb Sutter on increasing safety in C++

khim — Mon, 18 Mar 2024 15:02:25 +0000

Except the whole discussion started with example which directly contradicts your assertion.

Yes, developers will write crappy code, but that's not a problem by itself. It only becomes a problem when crappy code becomes popular and is starting to affect other people while developer ignores the issue. And that can be fixed. It was done pretty successfully, or else we wouldn't have had this discussion at all.

> Indeed, any exclusionary actions will likely lead to some expensive legal trouble.

Seriously? When was Kim reinstated as the lead of Actix-web and his opponents were sent to jail?

> Rust-the-project has no legal (or moral!) ability to ostracize or otherwise exclude anyone from writing software in Rust, putting it online with a warranty disclaimer, and random third parties incorporating/using it.

Indeed. But that doesn't mean that “nothing can be done”, as you assert. People are people, they find a way to achieve their goals. And if simple and obvious way doesn't work they find a roundabout way.

Herb Sutter on increasing safety in C++

pizza — Mon, 18 Mar 2024 14:42:16 +0000

> In Rust you almost never trade safety for speed. That's not how Rust works.

Incorrect; the fact that this code is explicitly conformant with the language shows that Rust does indeed work this way.

If the programmer wants to do something "unsafe" to gain some speed (or any other reason!) then they are free to do so. It is, after all, their own code.

....congratulations, Rust is finally beginning to have to grow up and face the harsh fact that in the real world, developers will write crappy [1] code that violates any number of "cultural norms" or "best practices" [2] and there is *nothing* that can be done about it!

Rust-the-project has no legal (or moral!) ability to ostracize or otherwise exclude anyone from writing software in Rust, putting it online with a warranty disclaimer, and random third parties incorporating/using it. After all, that's how Rust itself continues to exist. Indeed, any exclusionary actions will likely lead to some expensive legal trouble.

[1] in the eye of the beholder
[2] The parallels here with TFA's "voluntary practices to improve safety in C++" are richly ironic

Herb Sutter on increasing safety in C++

marcH — Sun, 17 Mar 2024 18:32:50 +0000

> Repeating criticism that is legally ignored is called harassment. It's illegal in many places.

I forgot: there's also a quote about doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Herb Sutter on increasing safety in C++

mb — Sun, 17 Mar 2024 17:14:23 +0000

>Repeating criticism [..] is called harassment

Wow. I'm speechless.

Herb Sutter on increasing safety in C++

marcH — Sun, 17 Mar 2024 17:10:58 +0000

> Maintaining something that people depend on is a responsibility.

Yes, and if the maintainer is "responsible" enough then the only, extremely well tested fix is to fork.

> It does not matter, if it's for free or not.

It very much does: most countries have laws that apply to business transactions. They obviously don't apply to random software you download from the Internet.

> If he doesn't want to be criticized for his work or can't handle it, he should not publish it.

Criticism is fine. Ignoring valid criticism is bad but it's perfectly legal. Repeating criticism that is legally ignored is called harassment. It's illegal in many places.

Herb Sutter on increasing safety in C++

mb — Sun, 17 Mar 2024 16:57:55 +0000

Many links have been posted here. I won't repeat.

>included "death threats"

You surely have a link to that?

Herb Sutter on increasing safety in C++

paulj — Sun, 17 Mar 2024 16:45:33 +0000

Again, please can you give an example of these unreasonable responses by the original author.

I am sceptical that it is possible for an author to leave responses to PRs/CRs made on their own personal project that could justify a campaign of negative comments against them. A campaign apparently that included "death threats" and which the author felt included "abuse". How can an unreasonable response by an author to PRs on their own project justify anything _else_ but "Thanks for the code, I'll make those changes somewhere else myself"?

You keep saying those responses exist, can you show them?

The level of entitlement that is implied by what you are saying is completely off the scale.

Herb Sutter on increasing safety in C++

marcH — Sun, 17 Mar 2024 15:45:01 +0000

> Again, we are talking about a guy who just published his /own/ software, to his /own/ Github account - who had nothing to do with any core Rust group.

Comparing his _personal_ project to the city of Athens is indeed way beyond ridiculous. If the core Rust group wants to "ostracize" disrupting people then great. But policing the entire Internet is not ancient Greece; it's the KGB.

Having to share space and live together is hard. The beauty of "forking" and the Internet in general is: there is an infinite amount of space and freedom available. No need to artificially import limitations from the real world.

BTW this is why the decision to remove "thumbs down" on social media and other sites is so good. If you don't like something, explain why and create something better in _your_ space and try to convince users and get more "thumbs up". Don't come and pollute other people's space.

Herb Sutter on increasing safety in C++

mb — Sun, 17 Mar 2024 14:52:04 +0000

Except that "hijacking" and "driving away" is not what actually happened here.

Popular projects don't live in a vacuum. If a maintainer of a popular project makes decisions that many users disagree with, then the maintainer will have to live with the feedback.
That has nothing to do with "hijacking".

Please go and take a look at the code. Some uses of unsafe were completely ridiculous.
And so were his responses in the PRs trying to improve that code. Please look at it.

>The principle of free software is, you scratch your own itches

That is only a very small part of it.
The major part of free software is collaboration, communication and technical improvements. All three of which the maintainer failed at, in the opinion of many users.

Herb Sutter on increasing safety in C++

anselm — Sun, 17 Mar 2024 14:40:50 +0000

I think the user might be right.

If the user thinks they're “right” but the maintainer of the code disagrees, it is the user's privilege to fork the code. The user is not entitled to have the maintainer change the code, at no charge, to conform to the user's wishes, and the user most certainly does not get to hijack the original project by driving away the original maintainer.

The principle of free software is, you scratch your own itches. Scratching other people's itches, particularly for free, is entirely optional (even though some free-software maintainers take satisfaction from that, and if that happens, good for those other people). In fact, the whole idea behind free software in the first place is putting other people in a position where they can scratch their own itches and don't need to rely on anyone else to scratch those itches for them.

Herb Sutter on increasing safety in C++

paulj — Sun, 17 Mar 2024 12:33:09 +0000

Can you provide a link, so we can be certain we're looking at the same thing?

Herb Sutter on increasing safety in C++

mb — Sun, 17 Mar 2024 12:29:06 +0000

That's sane behavior, if you are living under a stone.

>Launch a campaign of abuse, to pressure the author

Please read the authors responses to the PRs.
The author is not the victim.

Herb Sutter on increasing safety in C++

paulj — Sun, 17 Mar 2024 12:09:59 +0000

They can pay money, if the author is amenable. Otherwise they can simply say "Thanks for writing the code! Here's a fork we've made with out changes. Thanks again!".

See? Just fork, and be thankful. How is that hard? How _anything but that_ the right answer?

In particular, how is "Launch a campaign of abuse, to pressure the author into withdrawing from their own, personal project" acceptable?

What khim calls "ostracism" is implementable only through online bullying in an online world.

Herb Sutter on increasing safety in C++

mb — Sun, 17 Mar 2024 07:30:14 +0000

> Care to give examples of this communication?

Has already been posted here.

> If you want to call the tune, pay the piper.

So people who contribute their free time for the removal of unsafe code must pay money so that their pull request gets handled professionally?

> onto the _personal_ time of other authors

Do you realize that this is also true for the rejected contributors and the users?

This might be a good stopping point

corbet — Sun, 17 Mar 2024 06:29:57 +0000

This post suggests we're reaching (if not going beyond) the point where it might be a good idea to wind down this conversation. I don't think there's much more to be said that might change anybody's mind.

Herb Sutter on increasing safety in C++

paulj — Sun, 17 Mar 2024 02:21:44 +0000

Amen.

If someone wrote some code, and lets you use it for free, and you think it should be written differently, or some things could be done different or added: Suggest it, very nicely, as a "might be nice...". And if they disagree, well, say "Thanks for the code!". Your choices after that (if you're a not self-absorbed, toxic, ingrate) are to see if you can /pay/ the author, or fork and do it yourself (or pay someone else).

Don't be the self-absorbed, toxic, ingrate, who thinks that there are some holy coding rules, passed down from the great bearded hacker in the sky, the transgression of which justifies against a (non-profit, coding for fun) transgressor a campaign of "ostracism" - which the recipient is very likely to perceive as abusive.

Especially when these rules are not even in the damn compiler. Hell, the "transgressor" is explicitly /conforming/ to the rules of the language, as checked by the compiler.

Herb Sutter on increasing safety in C++

paulj — Sun, 17 Mar 2024 00:43:39 +0000

Oh, and most of all, whether a user has paid the author or not, the user of someone else's Free Software *never* has the right to be rude, never mind abusive, to that Free Software author.

That user has an *obligation* to be _polite_, and thankful. Especially if they havn't contributed a thing to said author.

Herb Sutter on increasing safety in C++

paulj — Sun, 17 Mar 2024 00:40:26 +0000

Care to give examples of this communication?

Also, given this was a personal project of his, and (AFAIK) he was doing this for his own enjoyment and fun, how can you characterise it as "unprofessional"?

You are projecting your own notions of what /you/ like for /your/ projects, onto the _personal_ time of other authors of Free Software, and you are _inventing_ obligations for said other Free Software authors that do not exist. They _do not exist_ in the licence, nor is it in any way sane to think that someone publishing some of their work as Free Software somehow encumbers them with /obligations/ to write the code the way /random others/ _demand_.

If you want to call the tune, pay the piper. Get a support contract. Pay them money. Put food on their table. _Then_ you have a _small_ and /limited/ right to expect something in return.

Herb Sutter on increasing safety in C++

paulj — Sun, 17 Mar 2024 00:34:38 +0000

I have to admit, I do not have the time - or inclination - to go back through all the reddit and github discussions.

However, the author's own characterisation of matters is that he received "abuse". Even summaries of what happened by /critics/ of the author that I find on reddit suggest "some" of the other criticisms (e.g. in reddit discussions) went too far. There is a suggestion that there were even "death threats" - by 2nd or 3rd hand sources I have read, I don't know how true.

Just in this LWN discussion - long after the fact, in a much more sober and considered and forum than reddit - the author has been described as an "offender", as "someone who refuses to follow the rules", and that "to do something about that". Admittedly just one commentator here, though it seems you also approve of the notion that "something" must be done to ostracise such people and expel them.

Again, we are talking about a guy who just published his /own/ software, to his /own/ Github account - who had nothing to do with any core Rust group. Who did nothing but give the world a high-performance web framework. And, events since (the author still maintains the code, now under another name, and it apparently beats the pants off the "community" [neutered?] version) suggest that this author actually knows something about making code perform.

I think the bullying was totally unacceptable, and I think some of the views being posted in this article in support of the campaign to "ostracise" an author of free software - i.e. effectively condoning abuse and bullying, even if you claim to be against it - are a stain on Free Software.

Herb Sutter on increasing safety in C++

mb — Sat, 16 Mar 2024 22:43:19 +0000

> clueless idiots

That is not a base for further discussion.

Herb Sutter on increasing safety in C++

Wol — Sat, 16 Mar 2024 22:40:00 +0000

> >if the user has a different use case or expectations to what the author claimed to the software would provide, then yes, the user is *wrong*.

> That is something I absolutely disagree with.
> I think the user might be right.

Screw. Meet hammer.

Just because many users think Excel is a database, just because clueless idiots think that F1 racing cars would be an excellent fast delivery vehicle, doesn't make them right.

Actually, that F1 example is pretty apt. The project was designed for SPEED, not heavy lifting. Just because idiots want to use a racing car to deliver 44-tonne loads, words fail me ...

Cheers,
Wol

Herb Sutter on increasing safety in C++

mb — Sat, 16 Mar 2024 22:34:24 +0000

> Then may I suggest you read the Register article you pointed the rest of us at!!!

I actually read the article and also the communication he did on github.
That all confirmed that he is not a victim but rather a very unprofessionally acting person, to say it mildly.

Herb Sutter on increasing safety in C++

Wol — Sat, 16 Mar 2024 22:32:20 +0000

> If this is a project that many people depend on, then the author should not have the free choice to continue the project at his own choice and force, if the majority disagrees.

If this is a project that many people depend on, then they were bloody idiots to depend on a project by someone who did not share the same values they did.

If you fnd a project that does 90% of what you want, and that extra 10% is unacceptable to the project owner then it on YOU to FORK it, not seize it by force.

At the end of the day, the very Register article you pointed us at said it was mob rule. The behaviour shown here was completely unacceptable, made even worse by the fact there was a perfectly acceptable, friendly, alternative.

Cheers,
Wol

Herb Sutter on increasing safety in C++

Wol — Sat, 16 Mar 2024 22:23:47 +0000

> P.S. That's why I celebrate what Rust achieved there. 20 or maybe even 10 years ago it wouldn't have been an achievement. But today, when voices of everyone who may act as authority and stop language abuse easily are forcibly silenced… to do what Rust community managed to achieve is not easy.

So you're happy celebrating a witch hunt. The ONLY thing this guy did wrong was to publish his pet project in the hope that other people would find it useful. And he got loads of abuse from people who thought what he was trying to achieve was conpletely unacceptable. I sure as hell hope you enjoy being a witch-finder. Because hell is where witch-finders are likely to end up.

Unfortunately, this is just the "me me me" politically correct and toxic side of Free Software. I just wish we could kick that out ...

Cheers,
Wol

Herb Sutter on increasing safety in C++

Wol — Sat, 16 Mar 2024 22:15:44 +0000

Then may I suggest you read the Register article you pointed the rest of us at!!!

That is quite clear that he was bullied - words like "unsafe shitstorm"?

Classic troll behaviour - to argue thing, and claim articles support you when in fact they say the complete opposite.

The fact other people found his project useful, does not give them the right to demand he change his priorities to suit them. If they want to fork it to achieve their personal objectives, then fine. That they think it acceptable to abuse him for disagreeing with them is not.

Cheers,
Wol

Herb Sutter on increasing safety in C++

Wol — Sat, 16 Mar 2024 22:11:44 +0000

So, to put it bluntly, you don't care if your computer runs like sloth on tranquilisers?

Cheers,
Wol

Herb Sutter on increasing safety in C++

hunger — Sat, 16 Mar 2024 15:09:53 +0000

AFAICT no government ever released a paper that COBOL threatens national cyber security, while we saw several papers doing that for C++ during the last year.

We will see how fast the industry can adopt a new language when the old language starts to effect the bottom line. It will effect the bottom line if regulations come in effect.

Herb Sutter on increasing safety in C++

khim — Sat, 16 Mar 2024 12:26:57 +0000

> Or is the architecture so broken and it can't work safely and fast at the same time?

The issue it that at certain point you reach the state where you have to make a choice. You may achieve, typically, about 50% of theoretical maximum performance while keeping architecture “safe and fast” bit at some point you hit the limit of what can be done that way.

Axum is developed independently and it's very close to Actix-web on benchmarks (currently 5% fater, but that changes over time, it was 5% slower year ago).

Beyond certain point you have to either do some hard choices or accept significant (though rarely critical) performance loss.

Things like the decision of Windows NT 4.0 to move graphics drivers into the “microkernel”.

Herb Sutter on increasing safety in C++

khim — Sat, 16 Mar 2024 12:19:22 +0000

> I feel like this sort of thing is an area where there is a huge disconnect between people actually involved with the rust project or any projects of note (like e.g. Steve Klabnik, who condemned this strongly in the blog post linked) and a certain genre of poster especially prevalent on places like reddit, where this kicked off.

How do you know there's a disconnect? I'm pretty sure that Steve is genuine in his grief. He is just not the person who would do things like that. I don't think he ever objected to what Kim is doing, publicly or privately.

But how do you know what others are thinking? I know for the fact that many of them would be fired if they would say what Redditers easily say… and you want to say that people placed in this position are the ones words of whom we should trust?

I consider Reddit posts closer to what people actually think: on Reddit people may say things without fear of retaliation because Reddit doesn't give others an easy way to use DIE department of speaker's company to silence said speaker.

Yet Reddit does give an option to silence people who stray out of the line. And if you go against the majority you would be silenced. But that wouldn't be because one person who hates your guts used the evidence that your are not “tolerant enough” against you.

Thus that easy threat: be nice even to the guys who may destroy your community or else you would be fired? That's not possible on Reddit. Or LWN for that matter.

But that's only not possible for people who keep their real identity separated from your Reddit (or LWN) identity. Once someone knows who you are… DIE departments are always watching. These are the real uncontrollable Inquisition that accelerate the downfall of the modern society that they supposedly serve.

You couldn't trust a word of anyone who is under threat to DIE from his words.

P.S. That's why I celebrate what Rust achieved there. 20 or maybe even 10 years ago it wouldn't have been an achievement. But today, when voices of everyone who may act as authority and stop language abuse easily are forcibly silenced… to do what Rust community managed to achieve is not easy.

Herb Sutter on increasing safety in C++

mb — Sat, 16 Mar 2024 11:58:45 +0000

>Yes. It was near the top, often #1.

Ok, that is quite unusual then.
I guess they took the other extreme and also removed all unsafe code that made sense? Or is the architecture so broken and it can't work safely and fast at the same time?

>The problem was always not the number of unsafe in Actix-web but the attitude that removal of unsafe needs a justification

Yes, I agree adding unsafe needs a justification. Not the removal.

Unsafe code is Ok, if it is carefully documented and thought through. The safe API to it must always be sound. Most of the time that means the unsafe code is down somewhere inside of a safe wrapper. But of course, that's not always easy to do and requires some serious engineering.

Herb Sutter on increasing safety in C++

khim — Sat, 16 Mar 2024 11:36:47 +0000

Yes. It was near the top, often #1. And that was, apparently, primary concern of it's author, his goal and achievment.

And it's not as if “bullying” started from nothing. Read this article, e.g. Does it look like a bullying?

Just read the whole discussion linked from there. Does this “car shouldn't have a seatbelts coz good drivers don't have accidents” or “bike helmets are for sissies, I wouldn't look cool if I would wear them” sound like a something you would want in an important project or library?

The problem was always not the number of unsafe in Actix-web but the attitude that removal of unsafe needs a justification, while using them when pesky compiler complains is fine.

What you have if you program like that is not Rust, that's C++ in the Rust skin!

That was the issue, not number of unsafe words per see.

And when Kim started adding safe functions which exported unsafe behavior to bring down number of unsafe code blocks… how do you deal with that?

AFAICS Rust community dealt with it in the only way that actually works: try to educate, but if that doesn't work then expell.

C/C++ community is full of such persons and it doesn't look as if any “safety plan” for C++ even acknowledges their existence.

Herb Sutter on increasing safety in C++

atnot — Sat, 16 Mar 2024 11:20:36 +0000

I can't say how representive this is, probably more prevalent in the long tail than I'd like, but I at least have been silently reading this discussion with a mixture of bewilderment and disgust.

I feel like this sort of thing is an area where there is a huge disconnect between people actually involved with the rust project or any projects of note (like e.g. Steve Klabnik, who condemned this strongly in the blog post linked) and a certain genre of poster especially prevalent on places like reddit, where this kicked off. It's really the usual contept culture stuff we see all day in all programming communities[1], but it's really disheartening to see from a community that I feel should be able to do better. It doesn't help that people feel emboldened and righteous by how genuinely important of a cause memory safety is either.

[1] If anyone hasn't read it yet: https://blog.aurynn.com/2015/12/16-contempt-culture/

Herb Sutter on increasing safety in C++

khim — Sat, 16 Mar 2024 11:12:15 +0000

> That you and mb think that kind of behaviour is acceptable, indeed you appear to be _celebrating_ it, suggests the "Rust community" has learned _nothing_ from that episode - so far as your comments are representative.

Actually Rust community have learned which things work and which things don't work. Which means it has a chance to survive.

But I guess the majority of people in the first world just don't understand how things work.

Well, coming collapse of EU, rivers of blood in Europe and smaller pools of the same substance in US would reeducate them… I just wish there was an easier way to teach people… but it looks like nothing else works.

> He abandoned it after being subjected to a campaign of _abuse_ and bullying.

If you portray the demands not to disable security alarms and to keep fuses functional “abuse” then I don't even know what to say.

The analogue to what Kim did would be creation of bridge without safety rails or building major mall without regard to regulations which demand that it should survive an eathquake.

If you do that in real world you may easily go to jail, in virtual world Kim just had to step down and he still got keep it's own fork which he may still play with… how is that “abuse”?

Herb Sutter on increasing safety in C++

mb — Sat, 16 Mar 2024 11:08:31 +0000

>Yes. It's about 30% slower on benchmarks.

And before the removal of the unsafe code it was this much faster? It was on top of the list?