@Migueldeicaza My biggest gripe about many of the C++ extensions over the years is how unreadable (by humans) the code can become. I believe simple, concise, readable syntax is another dimension of coding safety.
@clolsonus yeah I am not a fan either, but the joy of this is that folks that have those codebases might be able to sanitize them- which we should do.
@Migueldeicaza Longer discussion ... but I'm intrigued by the idea of some sort of "certified/certifiable" scripting language. Not that different from developing control software in matlab/simulink using 'certified' blocks that auto-gen C code. Or certifying a system with a bunch of code blocks and then developing a data-driven "configuration" to control the higher level logic. A script is just gluing underlying code blocks together in a different way, but not all that different.
@Migueldeicaza @clolsonus With a perfectly safe code base a single "safe" keyword at main() level.
@taschenorakel @Migueldeicaza I didn't want to sound grumpy or critical ... a lot of the C++ extensions over the years do important or interesting things. But for myself personally, I really try to stick to the subset of C++ I learned back in 1985 and I really feel like keeping it simple is an important part of developing safety critical code. (And of course I'm just one guy, a human, with a tiny sliver of perspective on the world, with all the corresponding limitations .... but I have developed flight controller code from scratch since the mid-2000's that flies successfully so I'm not coming at the subject completely hypothetically.)