Quote from: 2112 on December 22, 2014, 11:08:36 PM

Quote from: Peter Todd on December 22, 2014, 03:34:17 PM

Equally the demographics of people writing the tiny amount of C / C++ code out there is very different than the demographics writing in more modern languages.

Maybe it is true where you live. Where I live C++ enjoys resurgence in the form of superset/subset language SystemC, where certain things about the programs can be proven.

I'm referring specifically to the demographics of people writing code for Bitcoin-related applications.

Quote from: 2112 on December 22, 2014, 11:08:36 PM

Likewise, gmaxwell posted here information about new research where a specific C subset (targeting specific TinyRAM architecture) can be used to produce machine-verifiable proofs. AFAIK this is still a long-shot option for Bitcoin, not something usable currently.

My comment here pertains to the consensus-critical code in the dichotomy you've mentioned later.

C with machine-verifiable proofs has nothing to do with the type of C programming I'm criticizing; neither does SystemC. Those types of environments are so far removed from the vanilla and unsafe C(++) programming that gets people into trouble that you might as well call them different languages in all but name.