Why is this such a common defense for the peculiarities of C++? I see it pop up at least a couple of times, anytime C++ is criticized.
I don't have anything against taking pride in one's skill and craftsmanship, but excusing a tool's failings purely on the basis that one needs more skill to wield it and avoid those failings? I want to have that same level of skill and have my tool multiply my skill's output to the max, not have my skill wasted coaxing my tool to perform correctly.
If the implication is that the tool requiring more skill gives commensurate benefits, fair enough, but not if it's just hand-waving away obvious downsides.
Because the code in question isn't something a C++ dev would write, instead it looks like something someone who doesn't use the language much if at all, decided to use for this pretty silly comparison.
It would be one thing if this required skill, but this example is downright silly. Some other people here have posted more reasonable version, that might actually occur in the real world(like the example with std::span)
Yeah, agreed that a competent C++ dev would not write the code in the example. The charitable interpretation though is that errors of the same type can crop in real codebases, the example is just simplified for the purposes of discussion.
In such examples you’re always primed to look for a mistake. It’s a different situation when you have 100K+ lines of code, a dozen developers, and a deadline.
It’s a difference between “look this is Wally” (duh, of course) and a game of “Where’s Wally?”.
Whenever a CVE is discussed people say that the error is obvious, and no good programmer would write like that. It’s easy in hindsight.
Yea and C++ static analysis tools already warn for the case, so even for new C++ programmers where it might not be entirely obvious, its still easy to catch the error.
