On 6/6/2016 10:25 PM, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d wrote:
On 6/6/2016 5:19 PM, Brad Roberts via Digitalmars-d wrote:
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.
Without knowing any details of why your app wouldn't compile as @safe,
there's nothing useful nor actionable in the complaint.
There also is a conflation of two issues in the complaint - compiling
programs that are unsafe despite being marked @safe, and the compiler
complaining about unsafe code in code you'd like to be marked @safe.
Which is it?
For me, it's the latter, but the issues with the former make it hard to
trust either all that much.
I've fixed some of the issues in a couple bursts of activity over the
last several years, and filed a bunch more bugs, but the specifics
aren't the point I'm raising here, though your trimming of the thread
dropped that part of the context. You dismissed complaints of the
incompleteness of safety as the whining of non-users. I'm a user. I
was a much more frequent user until I got tired of the sheer number of
only partially complete nature of so much of the language + core
library. Yes they're separate, no that's not relevant to the majority
of users. Yes, I can and have contributed to the fixes, but it's
clearly (just based on commit history) not a priority to many people.
The D ecosystem is a large pile of incomplete features, with more added
all the time.
