On 1/18/2014 11:11 PM, Kapps wrote:
On Sunday, 19 January 2014 at 02:33:15 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
You elided the qualification "If it is a critical system". dmd is not a safety
critical application.
Nor are 99.99%, possibly 100%, of the applications currently being built with D.
Sociomantic uses D to write trading software. I think they'd be ill advised to
write code in such a way that it continues making trades after entering an
invalid state, as in it could be very expensive.
Furthermore, part of the reason why I am adamant about this is far too often I
run into, including in this thread, programmers who believe that the way to
write critical software is to keep the program running even if it has failed.
The points are valid, no safety critical application should ever rely on any
individual components not failing. But for the purpose of D, they are not
particularly applicable.
I don't buy that this is not applicable for D. D must not promote unsafe (as in
potentially life threatening) programming practice as a "best practice". You
never know how somebody is going to use a programming language.
People are just arguing over two different things
(safety critical code vs standard D code), with neither disagreeing with the
others, simply bringing up different situations.
There has been a lot of misunderstandings and miscommunications in this thread.
I do my best to clear them up.
