Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Short Safe C++ section added to Contributor Guide #384

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Dec 30, 2024
Merged

Short Safe C++ section added to Contributor Guide #384

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
29eb3ca
Short Safe C++ section added to Contributor Guide
PeterTurcan Dec 23, 2024
2166658
Safe C++ FAQ updates
PeterTurcan Dec 24, 2024
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
23 changes: 23 additions & 0 deletions contributor-guide/modules/ROOT/pages/contributors-faq.adoc
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -20,6 +20,7 @@ This section contains answers to the common questions that new contributors to B
* <<Existing Boost Libraries>>
* <<Modular Boost>>
* <<Post-Release Engagement>>
* <<Safe C++>>
* <<Security>>
* <<Testing>>

Expand Down Expand Up @@ -292,6 +293,28 @@ Positive feedback and praise from developers not only encourages the library aut
+
Financial contributions or sponsorships as a token of appreciation are rare!

[[safecpp]]
== Safe C++

. *As a contributor of a library to Boost, what do I need to know about Safe pass:[C++]?*
+
Currently, https://safecpp.org/P3390R0.html[Safe pass:[C++]] is a proposal, under discussion, to develop a memory-safe set of extensions to pass:[C++]. The push is because the current lack of memory safety makes it too easy for malicious software to exploit language vulnerabilities and perform a variety of attacks. Safe pass:[C++] would provide robust memory-safe, type-safe, and thread-safe operations.
+
Clearly there could be significant interest in safe versions of Boost libraries, though the level of work involved extends well beyond rewriting a library using the safe extensions, as _all_ dependencies would also have to be safe versions too.
+
Both the stakes and the workloads are high! If the proposal leads to a solid set of extensions, then as a library developer you will have a decision to make - whether to refactor your library using these extensions, or not. Many factors might influence this decision.

. *Is Safe C++ part of Boost?*
+
No, it is an independent initiative. The pass:[C++] Alliance has partnered with Sean Baxter, a key proponent of Safe pass:[C++], to further develop the proposal, and seek feedback from developers, researchers, and other stakeholders to refine the project's scope.

. *Is there an official release schedule for Safe C++?*
+
No, it is still at the proposal and design refinement stage.

. *What kind of feedback has the proposal garnered so far?*
+
Positive feedback centers on appreciation of the initiative to address longstanding safety concerns in pass:[C++]. More challenging feedback has included concerns about the complexity of integrating new safety features into the existing pass:[C++] framework, balancing enhanced safety with the language's core design features of performance and flexibility, and competition from the https://www.rust-lang.org/[RUST] language.

[[security]]
== Security
Expand Down