Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Submission Summary: 0 pending, 2 declined, 3 accepted (5 total, 60.00% accepted)

Submission + - C++ Commitee Prefers Bjarne Profiles Over Baxter Rustification

robinsrowe writes: No surprise, the C++ Committee is still trending toward C++ Profiles. It would have been a huge change had the Committee embraced Baxter's Rustification memory safety proposal. Would mean banning pointers. Making the C++ language much like Rust would deeply break every C++ program in the world. Article at TheRegister: “Rust-style safety model for C++ 'rejected' as profiles take priority” https://www.theregister.com/20...

The C++ standards committee abandoned a detailed proposal to create a rigorously safe subset of the language, according to the proposal's co-author, despite continuing anxiety about memory safety.

Article at Le Monde (in French): “The C++ standards committee rejected a proposal to create a secure subset of the language. Members prefer to focus on the Profiles framework pushed by C++ creator Bjarne Stroustrup.” https://www.lemondeinformatiqu...

"If you mark your code to apply a Profile, some features of the C/C++ language will stop working," he says. There is also a small problem, these guidelines were not integrated into version 26 of C++, but simply into a white paper. The controversy surrounding the security of C++ opens the door to another solution with the use of another language. The first advocated by several American authorities is Rust, but there is also Google's experimental Carbon project. Unveiled in 2022, it also aims to modernize C++.

If Profiles are eventually adopted, it may Balkanize C++ by dividing C++ into safe and unsafe subsets. C++ Profiles won't fix the issue of making C pointers memory safe. A proposal to implement pointer memory safety is TrapC, but for the C language, not C++. Some say make the switch to Rust, but that doesn't solve the safety problems lurking in billions of lines of existing C/C++ code.

Submission + - Math Genius AI to Co-author Proofs within Three Years (theregister.com)

robinsrowe writes: How must faster will technology advance with AI agents solving new mathematical proofs? AI today isn't very good at math. Vividly demonstrated recently, when the White House used AI to calculate "reciprocal tariffs" that made no math sense whatsoever. (AI doesn't know the math difference between a tariff and a deficit.) That AI today cannot mathematically reason is a rich source of AI hallucinations. DARPA, the research arm of the U.S. Department of Defense, aims to make AI math be much, much, much better. Not merely better at calculations, but to make AI do abstract math thinking. DARPA says that "The goal of Exponentiating Mathematics (expMath) is to radically accelerate the rate of progress in pure mathematics by developing an AI co-author capable of proposing and proving useful abstractions." Article in The Register...

The US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, aka DARPA, believes mathematics isn't advancing fast enough. So to accelerate – or "exponentiate" – the rate of mathematical research, DARPA this week held a Proposers Day event to engage with the technical community in the hope that attendees will prepare proposals to submit once the actual Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) solicitation goes out. Whoa, slow down there, Uncle Sam. DARPA's project, dubbed expMath, aims to jumpstart math innovation with the help of artificial intelligence, or machine learning for those who prefer a less loaded term.


Slashdot Top Deals

"The following is not for the weak of heart or Fundamentalists." -- Dave Barry

Working...