Hacker News Reader

The quote is incomplete without its continuation:

> This means that in order to write C++, you effectively have to memorize the undefined behavior rules, which sucks. Sound familiar?

Which is the point TFA is making. I believe you expended the attention span a bit too early.

View on HN

> Which is the point TFA is making.

Again, the point is wrong in more than one way.

You don't simply add undefined behavior. It's wrong, and buggy code. Onboard a static code analysis tool like cppcheck to tell you when you messed up.

It takes far less work to onboard any of these tools than it takes to write a sentence in a blog post.

TFA argues developers add it left and right, unless someone memorised all the rules. Since reportedly it's not possible to memorise all the rules by a single human, then you either "simply add undefined behaviour", or limit yourself to a subset of C++ that programmers do actually understand. Which is a solution I see in many codebases: to limit a set of permissible constructs by a style manual.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com