On 6/6/2016 2:16 AM, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d wrote:
On 6/6/2016 1:15 AM, Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d wrote:
* Safety has holes and bugs.
Then so does C, C++ and Rust, so this is just a comment made because it
can be made and sounds bad. Bad enough to salve the conscience of the
speaker as to why they are not already using D.
It's pretty clear when they say that, and then continue using C++ which
has no safety, that safety isn't the real reason.
This isn't a small problem, don't dismiss it quite that quickly. Safety
as a usable subset of D is still pretty non-existent and yet is used as
a selling point. The language still has holes -- I don't have bug
report numbers, but others have reported them in the past, some closed
some not. At the library level things are far worse. I've yet to be
able to write any interesting apps with an @safe main.
Has anyone?
Later,
Brad
