>I love how developer's go to argument is, "you must not be very experienced if you've never encountered X". It's gatekeepy and gross.

Ignore it then. I'm wrong. You honestly seem like you don't have much based off of what you're telling me about segfaults.

>It turns out you can avoid most segfaults using a little forethought and planning, like I said.

Just "avoid them" lol is what you're saying. That's how I program. Avoid all errors and bugs with a little planning and forethought so my programs are 100% bug and error free. That's how you do it.

Again I don't think you worked for a large corporate application if you think forethought and planning are all it takes to avoid a segfault or memory leak. With enough people and libraries and dependencies in the codebase statistically it inevitably gets introduced.

The only time it absolutely never gets introduced is if the language doesn't even have that class of errors.

>Yes, and it's gross. I worked on a 20 year old legacy C++ application that dealt with high frequency trading at my old job. It was nasty and there were several problems including a very large memory leak that was untraceable. You seem to have missed what I said, which was "but that doesn't mean a good developer can't avoid a lot of memory related footguns with a bit of forethought and planning". Key words, "a good _developer_". Once you throw in hundreds of developers into the mix all bets are off, and that's not the claim I was making.

Why make this claim at all? My point is C++ is less safe then python. Your attitude made it seem like your countering my claim but really you're just going off on a tangent on how good developers make a language safer? Why? Off topic. I mean the way you put it, we're basically in agreement. C++ is less safe then python and you need "good developers" in order to make it safe. Yet despite this agreement your attitude is passively hostile especially near the end where you just say you're "done replying" lol. I think what's going on here is you're changing the goal posts.

>If you're dealing with a system that you know inside and out, it is usually a very simple matter to trace a segfault.

How is this even relevant? When is a code base so simple that you know it inside and out? Have you seriously been dealing with C++ outside of your hobby projects?

>You can do the same thing with a C++ segfault.

No you can't. There's no data to follow backwards from the segfault. The segfault can even occur in a library you don't have source code for and it's very hard to trace this without external tooling. For javascript you just trace the path of the undefined variable. That's it. You don't even technically need a debugger for this.

Are you sure you worked with C++ in a large code base? Because what I stated above is somewhat definitive.

>Anyways, I hope you have a good day :). My intent is not to have an argument over an inconsequential problem, so I'm done replying.

No man. This is a cop out. I'm open to being convinced but you know your arguments are reaching dead ends you're going off on strange tangents just to try to stay afloat. So you act polite and pretend you're too above it all. Come on man that's weak.

It is literally definitive that an undefined is easier to trace then a segfault. There's no leeway or opinion here yet you have inserted so much off topic and questionable stuff that I'm not sure if you're even being honest.