• lysdexic@programming.devOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Nobody’s perfect and time has shown multiple time that you can’t trust human beings with memory safety.

    That’s perfectly fine. That’s not a problem caused UB, or involving UB.

    Again, UB is a red herring.

    It is however the language’s fault to allow UB in the first place.

    It really isn’t. Again, mindlessly parroting this doesn’t give any substance to this claim. Please try to think about it for a second. For starters, do you believe it would make any difference if the C or C++ standard defined how the language should handle dereferencing a null pointer? I mean, in some platforms NULL is a tombstone, but on specific platforms NULL actually points to a valid memory address. The standards purposely leave this as undefined. Why is that? Seriously, think about it for a second.

    Am I blaming those languages? Nah, it was a different time.

    It really isn’t. It’s a design choice that reflects the need to work with the widest possible range of platforms. The standards have already been updated with backwards-incompatible changes, but even the latest revisions purposely include UB.

    I repeat: I see people mindlessly parroting nonsense about UB when they clearly have no idea what they’re talking about.