bearophile wrote:
(Reading about safer language subsets like SPARK and MISRA I have learnt that
having a language safe on default is better
Reading about a language is not good enough to make such decisions. You need to
have considerable experience with them. I've seen a lot of claims about
languages that simply do not pan out. Exception specifications in Java is a
prime example - it took years of experience to discover that was a really bad
idea. It had the opposite effect from what was intended (and touted).
> Take also a look at how Ada specifies interfaces across modules.
Ada is a failed language.
> A language needs to be designed with a balance between low verbosity and
safety, here in my opinion D has chosen too much for the low verbosity (as
Walter reminds D's anti-hijacking support in imports is a nice idea, but I think
it's not enough).
D's anti-hijacking nails it. You get the benefits of low verbosity, and it's
perfectly safe. It's a lot more than just a "nice idea".
