The definition of “a memory safe programming language” is not in debate at all in the programming community.
Yes, my mistake. I’m sorry.
This is incredibly arrogant, and, tbh, ignorant.
You’ve willingly ignored the remaining part of that context, where I explicitly admitted problems in common usage. It was not my intention to come across as arrogant.
there is no language construct in place to protect from these trivial memory safety issues
Depending on what you mean by “language constructs”: there are, e.g. RAII or smart pointers. But they aren’t enforced. So it’s correct to say that C++ is inherently memory unsafe due to the lack of such enforcements. The discussions here changed my opinion about that.
Yes, my mistake. I’m sorry.
You’ve willingly ignored the remaining part of that context, where I explicitly admitted problems in common usage. It was not my intention to come across as arrogant.
Depending on what you mean by “language constructs”: there are, e.g. RAII or smart pointers. But they aren’t enforced. So it’s correct to say that C++ is inherently memory unsafe due to the lack of such enforcements. The discussions here changed my opinion about that.