deleted by creator

I don’t really see how it’s daunting enough to avoid mentioning. You can replace a C array on the stack by just swapping it with std::array. Yes, it can depend on the project structure, but that’s equivalently true for any STL container the author recommended.

Why no mention of std::array?

C++ can be written to be safe. I don’t think WH is the right authority to issue this warning. Naming C++ rather than going after specific features is unfair.

That said, writing safe C++ requires a good training, and I’ve seen many colleagues who don’t / can’t write safe C++. I don’t think my company has the skill. I don’t think I can fix my company. Also, the safety in C++ breaks down the moment someone links to an unsafe library. C++ does not really offer language support for analyzing what’s safe and what’s not.

We all knew Stroustrup was going to defend C++. I have read him do so a few times in the past. Imho he always does make a point. But I’ve never seen him admit any weakness. I’ve never seen a non-C++ dev see his comments and change their mind.

Reflection and contracts would be really great if they make their way. But… maybe I have to wait 20 years just to get a minimal version that can be totally done with macros anyway…

Nah, I’m just kidding, but…

This might sound cynical, but C++ reflection seems to never happen. What’s needed is perhaps a bare minimum that can be extended or even thrown away afterwards.

That’s better than wasting another few decades to find out the community can’t agree on C++ reflection, again

We can improve security via updating the C++ language forever, but the threat remains in the package management, and I couldn’t find that discussion in this article.

“I was trying to be polite. YOURS!”