A popular conference talk has been making the rounds, praising C++26’s new safety features — erroneous behavior, standard library hardening, contracts — as the answer to decades of memory safety criticism.
The title is clickbait, but the article is well written.
It is tearing apart some points made in a talk (which I didn’t watch). The talk seems to focus on C++26 features (given that you are using C++) while the article argues why you still shouldn’t use C++ in the first place, despite the improvements. Mainly because the memory safety features are opt-in. There is also discussion about the CrowdStrike incident, and how it was more of a cultural problem than a language problem.
Maybe my LLM detector needs an update, but only the headline triggered it. The article did the opposite for me.
Anyway, the author checks out, old github profile etc. Works in high frequency trading, which I despise because I think it is make-do work, moving money around a millisecond before anyone else has a chance, a huge technical effort with zero benefit to society compared to slower trading. I’ll file it together with adtech and bitcoin. But. The article is not about that. And I know that working in high frequency trading sure makes you qualified to talk C++ or FPGAs or anything close-to-the-metal. So, author background checks out. Verdict: not slop.
The title is clickbait, but the article is well written.
It is tearing apart some points made in a talk (which I didn’t watch). The talk seems to focus on C++26 features (given that you are using C++) while the article argues why you still shouldn’t use C++ in the first place, despite the improvements. Mainly because the memory safety features are opt-in. There is also discussion about the CrowdStrike incident, and how it was more of a cultural problem than a language problem.
The article has some good points, but it read as pure LLM slop to me.
Was reminded of the meme: Heartbreaking: The worst person you know just made a great point.
Maybe my LLM detector needs an update, but only the headline triggered it. The article did the opposite for me.
Anyway, the author checks out, old github profile etc. Works in high frequency trading, which I despise because I think it is make-do work, moving money around a millisecond before anyone else has a chance, a huge technical effort with zero benefit to society compared to slower trading. I’ll file it together with adtech and bitcoin. But. The article is not about that. And I know that working in high frequency trading sure makes you qualified to talk C++ or FPGAs or anything close-to-the-metal. So, author background checks out. Verdict: not slop.