Hacker News Reader

Comment by dpe82 | Hacker News Reader

C and modern C++ are so different that lumping them together in a blanket assertion doesn't really carry much meaning.

View on HN

It is true that they are different, but also, given the significant overlap between the two, people will reasonably talk about them together.

From a safety perspective they aren't very close, there is a reason that all these CVE bugs are C code.

I haven't seen conclusive evidence that this is the case, do you happen to have an analysis of this somewhere?

Of course, C++ offers you tools that C doesn't, but some of those tools have their own sharp edges as well. Plus, many C++ codebases are "C with classes" style or similar hybrids, those are still ultimately C++ programs, not C ones.

Counterexamples would be s2n, grpc, putty, postfix, that are either C with classes or non-PDP C. I suppose in postfix security design was an afterthought and added gradually, but at least it was thought.

I think this means you're making the opposite argument that most C++ folks do, which is that C with classes is bad, and more prone to security issues than "modern C++" is.

My argument is that C with classes is bad when it uses bad security practice, not because it must be bad.

If the code compiles with a C++ compiler, for better or worse it is C++ as well, might be C style C++ code, which is nonetheless part of the grammar, semantics and libraries defined by ISO C++ standard.

And that is the deal, lack of security culture.

If only didn't exist so many folks that insist in using C types, and C headers, in modern C++ code.

Indeed.

i think part of it is that if you have one in your project, it's nearly frictionless to have both. the toolchain is the same, and especially if you're using C++, you can and often do have C dependencies

Reply on news.ycombinator.com