On 19/03/2018 5:23 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Monday, March 19, 2018 17:15:26 rikki cattermole via Digitalmars-d wrote:
On 19/03/2018 5:05 PM, Norm wrote:
On Monday, 19 March 2018 at 03:53:07 UTC, rikki cattermole wrote:
You just said the magic word, medical.
D was never an appropriate fit here.
dmd's backend has been for thirty years (or so) been up to recently
licensed so that you may not use it for this purpose. Nothing has
changed here.
I have no idea what you're talking about now.
What has the backend license got to do with medical?
The code generation capabilities of dmd has not been certified for
medical usage.
In essence, if it generated bad code, kills somebody, your the one at
fault, even if the source is fine. You would end up begging to settle
out of court.
It is my understanding that medical software manufacturers pay for their
compilers already certified. So that suggests to me that you're not
exactly life threatening but I would still caution you away from D even
if that bit is just my own opinion.
It may be there are compilers certified for that sort of thing (I'm
certainly no expert on the subject), but AFAIK, basically every compiler
ever says that it's not certified or guaranteed for anything, because the
compiler writers don't want to get sued if something goes wrong regardless
of what you're using it for.
- Jonathan M Davis
Here is clang's[0], nothing about medical. Just you can't sue us when it
goes wrong.
Compare against[1], clearly its a big deal safety wise. This is why I
will say specifically even for D that I love, do not use it here.
[0] http://releases.llvm.org/2.8/LICENSE.TXT
[1]
https://developer.arm.com/products/software-development-tools/compilers/arm-compiler/safety
