C++ is widely recognized as one of the most powerful and versatile programming languages. It combines high performance with fine control over system resources, which is why it’s extensively used in domains like game development, embedded systems, operating systems, and real-time applications. However, this power comes with certain safety issues that have been a point of concern for developers and companies over the years.
Why has it taken so long to definitively resolve C++ safety issues? Is this due to resistance from the C++ community, or is it because the problem is inherently difficult to solve?
C++ Community and Developer Culture
When discussing safety issues in C++, a common theme in popular forums like Reddit and Stack Overflow is blaming developers for not adhering to best practices. Many active C++ developers argue that the language itself isn’t inherently unsafe but rather that developers fail to apply modern tools and coding standards properly. This view is particularly common among vocal members of the community who believe that following best practices (such as using smart pointers, RAII, and avoiding raw memory management) can mitigate the language’s inherent dangers.
However, this visible group of developers doesn’t necessarily represent the majority of the C++ community. While their voices dominate online discussions, there is a silent majority who may not share these views but feel overwhelmed by the complexity and burden of ensuring safety in C++ code. Many experienced developers do acknowledge that, despite best practices, the language’s reliance on manual memory management and the lack of inherent safety guarantees create risks that are difficult to avoid.
C++ Standard Committee’s Approach
The C++ Standard Committee has long recognized the safety challenges in C++ but faces the monumental task of addressing them without breaking existing codebases or compromising performance. The language’s focus on backward compatibility has slowed progress, and introducing safety mechanisms has to be done incrementally, ensuring that older, critical systems continue to function without disruption.
C++11, C++14, and more recent versions (like C++17 and C++20) introduced significant safety improvements, such as:
- Smart pointers (
std::shared_ptr,std::unique_ptr) to avoid manual memory management. std::optionalfor safer handling of optional values.std::variantto avoid unsafe unions.
Despite these advancements, the final solution to C++’s safety issues—in the form of a truly memory-safe C++—has not arrived in time to prevent many companies from turning to other, more inherently safe languages. As a result, some large companies have begun migrating to languages like Rust and Go, which offer stronger safety guarantees by design, particularly for concurrent programming and memory management.
Rust, in particular, is gaining popularity because it enforces memory safety at compile-time without sacrificing performance. Its ownership model ensures that memory issues like buffer overflows, dangling pointers, and use-after-free errors are virtually impossible. The fact that companies are adopting Rust for system-level programming suggests that while the C++ committee has made strides in improving safety, these efforts have not been enough to keep some organizations from looking elsewhere.
The delay in resolving C++ safety issues stems from a combination of both factors: the complexity of the problem itself and some resistance within the community.
- Inherent Complexity: C++ is designed to offer low-level control over memory, which is one of its key strengths but also its main safety challenge. Achieving both high performance and safety is a difficult balance. Since C++ is widely used in critical systems, where even slight performance regressions can be costly, finding solutions that enhance safety without sacrificing speed is technically challenging. This need for backward compatibility with decades-old codebases also makes fundamental changes much harder.
- Community Resistance: Some in the C++ community, particularly the more experienced developers, resist certain safety measures that might enforce stricter memory rules or higher-level abstractions, as they believe these changes could reduce C++’s performance advantages. Additionally, C++ developers often prioritize best practices over safety guarantees from the language itself, arguing that disciplined use of the language can avoid most pitfalls.
Conclusion
The C++ community as a whole has not completely “buried its head in the sand” when it comes to safety issues. However, the community’s focus on developer responsibility and best practices has led to a perception that the language’s risks can be entirely managed by skilled developers. In contrast, many industry experts and companies recognize that safety in C++ is still a major challenge that hasn’t been fully resolved, prompting a shift to newer languages with built-in safety mechanisms.
While the C++ Standard Committee has made significant progress over the years, the slow, incremental nature of these changes, combined with the language’s complexity, has led some to question whether it’s too little, too late for certain industries that prioritize safety above all else.
