> Right, but at this point you have a very weird looking subset of C++
It's a little weird looking at first glance, but ultimately it's not really that weird. The main unfamiliar thing is that objects that are going to be the target of a (safe) pointer need to be declared as such. So
{
std::string s1;
auto s1_ptr = &s1;
}
becomes
{
mse::TXScopeObj s2;
auto s2_ptr = &s2;
}
s2 acts just like a regular string. It's just wrapped in a (transparent) type that overloads the & (address of) operator so that s2_ptr is a safe pointer. (For example, in this case s2_ptr cannot be retargeted or set to null).
> that can't seamlessly integrate with other libraries,
Sure it can, that's the point. For example:
{
std::string s1 = "abc";
mse::TXScopeObj s2 = "def";
auto s2_ptr = &s2;
std::string s3 = s1 + s2; // s2 totally works where an std::string is expected
s3 += *s2_ptr;
*s2_ptr = s1; // and vice versa
}
> and can't be translated to from regular C++ without significant human intervention --
Umm, it could be automated, but you would need a tool that can recognize object declarations. But modern C++ code is mostly safe already. I mean you're supposed to try to avoid pointers in favor of standard containers and iterators. So just replace your "std::vector"s with "mse::mstd::vector"s and your "std::array"s with "mse::mstd::array"s and you're mostly there.
> why not just use Rust?
My impression is that Rust has been evolving a lot. Is the language stable now? Is it time to jump in? Has it vanquished D as the successor to C++? Are we happy with Rust's solution for exceptions?
Even if Rust is the future, and the future is here, I'm still stuck with existing C++ projects. And I'd feel better if they were (at least mostly) memory safe. There must be others in the same boat.