Skip Navigation

Programmer Humor @lemmy.ml

PandaDEV @lemmy.ml

2mo ago

unsafeCode

Programmer Humor @programming.dev

cm0002 @lemmy.world

2mo ago

unsafeCode

20 comments

Strictly speaking, it should be
Unsafe block syntax in C++

{ ...}

That is why I use just int main(){...} without arguments instead.
- Any void main(){...} enjoyers?
  
  besides not requiring a return value, what difference does it make?
  
  while (true) {...}
  
  int main(void) { . . . } for me!
- Very true, the less user input you have the safer your code will be.

Safe code is a skill, not a feature.

i will never forgive C for making the type syntax be
c

char* args[]
instead of the much more reasonable
c

&[char] args
it also bothers me that char* args[] and char c are “the same type” in the sense that the compiler lets you write
c

char c, *args[5];
with no problems. i think the C languages would be way easier to learn if they had better type syntax. don’t even get me started on C++ adding support for
cpp

auto fn_name() -> ReturnType { … }
- @affiliate Hey, you didn't even mention that char *args[] actually means char **args in a parameter list.
  
  god, what a beautiful language. it brings a tear to my eye
  
  It could, but not necessarily.
  char **args can just mean you have a pointer which points to an address, and at that address, you can get a second address. Follow the second address, there is a char saved there.
  On the other hand, char *args[] means " follow this address to find a list of characters".

counterpoint: all code is unsafe. retvrn to abacuses
- But I was hit over the head with one, that wasn't safe either!

20 comments