HackerReposA FIELD GUIDE TO OPEN SOURCE
ProSponsor the shelf♧ 0
← Back to top all-time
duneroadrunner
SaferCPlusPlus
C++2016–2026
duneroadrunner / SaferCPlusPlus

SaferCPlusPlus

A collection of safe data types that are compatible with, and can substitute for, common unsafe native c++ types

6Distinct people
100Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
426GitHub stars
REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

A collection of safe data types that are compatible with, and can substitute for, common unsafe native c++ types

GitHub

Where it is used

No documented product use has been verified yet.

What people are saying

No recommendation phrase was found in the indexed comments.

No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.

Also in these discussions

Mentioned in the same Hacker News threads. That is not proof they are substitutes.

This week on Hacker News

Nov 8–Nov 15 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/15/2026, 12:45:45 PM UTC.

No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.

Mentions over time

HN mentions by year100 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2016-09-26 19:33:34 UTC to 2026-08-03 12:30:33 UTC.

0102030402016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 21 mentions; 0 submissions, 21 comments20162017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 40 mentions; 0 submissions, 40 comments2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 14 mentions; 0 submissions, 14 comments2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 18 mentions; 1 submissions, 17 comments2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 2 mentions; 0 submissions, 2 comments2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments20212022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 1 submissions, 0 comments2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2027-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 3 mentions; 0 submissions, 3 comments. Incomplete calendar period.2026*

* An incomplete calendar period is marked with an outlined bar. Its count is not directly comparable with a full period.

Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.

View mention counts and date ranges
UTC ranges include their start and exclude their end. Select a period to filter the source evidence.
PeriodStart (UTC)End (exclusive, UTC)MentionsSubmissionsComments
20162016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC21021
20172017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC40040
20182018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC14014
20192019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC18117
20202020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC202
20212021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20222022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20232023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20242024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC110
20252025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC101
2026 (partial)2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2027-01-01 00:00:00 UTC303

What Hacker News says

2 sources
Unfortunately, documentation [1] is still kind of lacking. Like Rust (and arguably modern C++ conventions?), the safe subset doesn't support pointer arithmetic directly. You would have to convert the pointer to an iterator (and its target to an appropriate container). Auto-conversion of code that uses pointer arithmetic is challenging, but has been demonstrated to be solvable in the general case [2]. [1] https://github.com/duneroadrunner/SaferCPlusPlus#getting-sta... [2] https://github.com/duneroadrunner/SaferCPlusPlus-AutoTransla...
In The C++ Lifetime Profile: How It Plans to Make C++ Code Safer
I think the answer is yes. There's a complementary project [1] that aims to enforce a slightly more restricted memory safe subset of C++ than the lifetime profile checker does (or eventually will). The restrictions do not manifest as limitations on the code, but rather as extra run-time checks in some scenarios. The C++ language maps one-to-one to the safe subset, so auto-conversion of (reasonable) existing C++ code to the safe subset should be a straightforward (if tedious) undertaking. The issue will be the performance of the converted code, which will depend on how pointers/references are used in the original code. Pointers that are expected to never point to (in addition to never dereference to) a destroyed object can be converted to "safe" pointers with little run-time overhead [2]. Otherwise the pointer would need to converted to on
Read the rest
e with more overhead [3]. Pointers that can be verified (by the static analyzer) to conform to "scope lifetime" rules (akin to Rust) can remain zero-overhead pointers. New code written in the safe subset would generally have performance in the ballpark of traditional C++ [4]. [1] https://github.com/duneroadrunner/scpptool [2] https://github.com/duneroadrunner/SaferCPlusPlus#norad-point... [3] https://github.com/duneroadrunner/SaferCPlusPlus#registered-... [4] https://github.com/duneroadrunner/SaferCPlusPlus-BenchmarksG... (note that the benchmark code is quite old and will be updated soon)
In The C++ Lifetime Profile: How It Plans to Make C++ Code Safer

MAKE YOURSELF AT HOME

A few shortcuts

/
Search the collection
?
Open this guide
Esc
Close dialogs and navigation

Your saved repositories and interests stay in this browser.