551
Pointers explained: (europe.pub)
submitted 4 months ago by to c/programmer_humor@programming.dev
77 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 8 points 4 months ago* (8 children)

So, googling it, the general premise is you should use smart pointers instead to avoid crashes. Got it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    Smart pointers implies C++, which is not the right answer.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    Unlike many other programming languages, which are often picked up on the go from tutorials found on the Internet, few are able to quickly pick up C++ without studying a well-written C++ book. It is way too big and complex for doing this. In fact, it is so big and complex, that there are very many very bad C++ books out there. And we are not talking about bad style, but things like sporting glaringly obvious factual errors and promoting abysmally bad programming styles.

    https://stackoverflow.com/questions/388242/the-definitive-c-book-guide-and-list

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (3 children)

    They all have footguns that cause different crashes.

    If you want to do explicit memory access without inevitable safety problems, you need Rust. That's the whole hype with Rust.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago* (2 children)

    But... per-process-isolation is a hardware feature, no?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •