https://security.googleblog.com/2022/12/memory-safe-language...
While C++ with the latest features should be secure enough in theory, in practice practically no one is using all the latest features just right to achieve the needed security.
Sorry, the NSA report is correct. Using C or C++ opens your project up to memory safety risks. Use a memory safe language if at all possible.
That is provably false:
https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/04/06/things-you-should-...
There are numerous developers on this forum who could provide eyewitness accounts of project rewrite horror stories.
The same thing would happen if you rewrote in rust.
However, there are some patterns that Rust does not allow that other languages do allow which may help to avoid problems.
For example, creating cyclic dependencies and relationships is more difficult in Rust due to the way that ownership rules are enforced. Rust also helps to avoid data races and memory unsafety issues so that whole classes of errors and bugs can be avoided.
You're confusing things. Google's example focused on rewriting specific components with a specific goal in mind: fix/avoid unsafe memory access. The examples in that blog post consist of major rewrites of huge software projects like browsers, whose goal was to be feature complete.
Those are quite different things.
The statement, "Almost every project sees fewer issues with a rewrite, no matter which languages are involved.", was too broad and I wanted to show how I disagreed with it when the article I cited was concerned with component rewrites.
I did not intend to conflate the two since the scopes are quite different.
I would personally choose Rust over C++. I dislike the number of gotchas that C++ has and I think the language has gotten too big and complex to use safely.
In the article I linked above, the Google Android team stated:
"To date, there have been zero memory safety vulnerabilities discovered in Android’s Rust code."
Their C++ code requires more static analysis tools and fuzzers and does not have a comparable record.
If modern C++ were as safe as Rust then why wouldn't they just use modern C++? It would be a lower effort rewrite and would not need new compilers.
This take sounds like fomo mixed with cargo cult programming.
When you write something in C++, nothing forces you to use all features of C++. There is no bingo card you have to fill to get your project to compile. You just pick the things you feel serves your purposes, and stick with them.
I don't really understand this irrational take. It's like claiming they don't want to speak in English because the dictionary is too large and some words are too tricky to spell to use in a conversation.
It's not irrational to want to avoid trouble.
Why would I want to use C++ with its plethora of gotchas, traps, caveats, pitfalls and footguns when I can use something safer and just as performant?
Why stop at smart pointers?
I would rather use a smarter compiler / smarter language with fewer gotchas, traps, caveats, pitfalls and footguns.