Re: I Agree with Bjarne Stroustrup!!
“WTF would a language that adds features for security look like?”
I should answer this another way, because it shows you don’t know what you are talking about. For security, a language doesn’t add features, it takes them away. These are not really features anyway because they are not needed for general-purpose programming. Things like pointers in C. These should be implicit and mostly are in other languages. You should not be able to manipulate pointers to arbitrary areas in memory (even within your own memory space).
C++ just becomes more complicated, and the interaction of complications leads to holes. So you get the Vasa Queen syndrome.
For many other languages they don’t have these dangerous facilities. It seems Stroustrup would like to remove things so that C++ becomes simpler like other languages and more specific to OO or functional programming. But then you end up with languages that are already out there - so why bother with C++ anymore? It will be C++50 before it gets down to a decent size.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
