Simen Kjaeraas Wrote: > 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
Yepp! Thanks! :))
