Zoran Isailovski <[email protected]> wrote:
Oh... I've got the wrong impression from the papers about D. (But then, why would someone design an *unsafe* language *by intention*??? For that, we've got C and C++, don't we?)
Because we want D to be the new C/C++? :p D is unsafe in that it lets you shoot yourself in the foot with a limited amount of hassle. It has pointer arithmetics, manual memory management if you want that, etc. It is however not unsafe in the same way as C/C++ (here's a boot with a gun attached to it, to use it safely, remove the gun) Also, there is SafeD, which is not yet implemented, but it's coming. (http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/safed.html)
Anyway, I've been looking for a modern and *safe* language, but without the overkill of a Java VM or .NET runtime. My hope was with D, but you seem to be convincing me otherwise...
It may or may not be. As mentioned above, it's still possible to ferk up with D, but it's a lot harder than with C or C++.
Does the "D is unsafe by intention" relate to D2.0, too?
D2 still has pointers and optional manual memory management, so yes. D2 has fixed a lot of the unsafe things from D1, so no. Clear enough? :p -- Simen
