Adding a FAQ section#59
Draft
Dalzhim wants to merge 1 commit into
Draft
Conversation
|
An automated preview of the documentation is available at https://59.safe-cpp.prtest2.cppalliance.org/draft.html |
2 similar comments
|
An automated preview of the documentation is available at https://59.safe-cpp.prtest2.cppalliance.org/draft.html |
|
An automated preview of the documentation is available at https://59.safe-cpp.prtest2.cppalliance.org/draft.html |
|
An automated preview of the documentation is available at https://59.safe-cpp.prtest2.cppalliance.org/draft.html |
|
An automated preview of the documentation is available at https://59.safe-cpp.prtest2.cppalliance.org/draft.html |
Comment on lines
+2856
to
+2858
| ### There's promising research that could yield a solution that is both more simple and more elegant than rust-style borrow checking. Why not wait? | ||
|
|
||
| The security community and regulators are actively pushing developers towards memory safe languages with official guidance since 2022. Does C++ stay on the do-not-use list or does C++ become a memory safe language? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| ### There's promising research that could yield a solution that is both more simple and more elegant than rust-style borrow checking. Why not wait? | |
| The security community and regulators are actively pushing developers towards memory safe languages with official guidance since 2022. Does C++ stay on the do-not-use list or does C++ become a memory safe language? | |
| ### Aren’t there some other promising experiments supposedly on the horizon that could yield a simpler and more-elegant solution than Rust-style borrow checking. Why not wait? | |
| There are no other experiments on the horizon. And in the meantime, government organizations and others continue to publish document such as the [CISA “Product Security Bad Practices” guidance](https://www.cisa.gov/resources-tools/resources/product-security-bad-practices) containing statements like this: | |
| > _For existing products that are written in memory-unsafe languages, not having a published memory safety roadmap by January 1, 2026 is dangerous and significantly elevates risk to national security, national economic security, and national public health and safety._ | |
| So, we don’t have the luxury of being able to wait around for other people to eventually appear with hypothetically “better” solutions. And so the question is: What concretely can we be working on together right now to make sure that C++ gets on the _“has a published memory safety roadmap”_ by January 2026 at the latest? |
| * [Why is `std::*` missing from `std2`?](#why-is-std-missing-from-std2) | ||
| * [Won't `std2` lead to an extreme function coloring problem?](#wont-std2-lead-to-an-extreme-function-coloring-problem) | ||
| * [Are there runtime checks?](#are-there-runtime-checks) | ||
| * [There's promising research that could yield a solution that is both more simple and more elegant than rust-style borrow checking. Why not wait?](#theres-promising-research-that-could-yield-a-solution-that-is-both-more-simple-and-more-elegant-than-rust-style-borrow-checking.-why-not-wait) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| * [There's promising research that could yield a solution that is both more simple and more elegant than rust-style borrow checking. Why not wait?](#theres-promising-research-that-could-yield-a-solution-that-is-both-more-simple-and-more-elegant-than-rust-style-borrow-checking.-why-not-wait) | |
| * [Aren’t there some other promising experiments supposedly on the horizon that could yield a simpler and more-elegant solution than Rust-style borrow checking. Why not wait?](#arent-there-some-other-promising-experiments-supposedly-on-the-horizon-that-could-yield-a-simpler-and-more-elegant-solution-than-rust-style-borrow-checking-why-not-wait) |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This is a first draft of what a FAQ section could look like. This is meant to answer clear questions succinctly.