On 10/1/2014 6:17 AM, Bruno Medeiros wrote:
Walter, you do understand that not all software has to be robust -
Yes, I understand that.
in the critical systems sense - to be quality software? And that in fact, the majority of software is not critical systems software?... I was under the impression that D was meant to be a general purpose language, not a language just for critical systems. Yet, on language design issues, you keep making a series or arguments and points that apply *only* to critical systems software.
If someone writes non-robust software, D allows them to do that. However, I won't leave unchallenged attempts to pass such stuff off as robust.
Nor will I accept such practices in Phobos, because, as this thread clearly shows, there are a lot of misunderstandings about what robust software is. Phobos needs to CLEARLY default towards solid, robust practice.
It's really too bad that I've never seen any engineering courses on reliability. http://www.drdobbs.com/architecture-and-design/safe-systems-from-unreliable-parts/228701716
