> Not to mention the weird conclusion that since no language has 0, that isn't the goal. I'm not sure I understand the logic that you shouldn't at least _try_ to not have any major security flaws.
He addressed that, the cost of making it to 0 would be too great (C++ would have to break backwards compatibility) so we should try and be inline with other languages instead.
I don't understand why you're acting as if he didn't make the point he made.
He addressed that, the cost of making it to 0 would be too great (C++ would have to break backwards compatibility) so we should try and be inline with other languages instead.
I don't understand why you're acting as if he didn't make the point he made.