confusing (buggy?) closure behaviour

[Simen Kjaeraas]

Zoran Isailovski <dmd.zoc at spamgourmet.com> wrote:

> Oh... I've got the wrong impression from the papers about D. (But then,  
> why would someone design an *unsafe* language *by intention*??? For  
> that, we've got C and C++, don't we?)

Because we want D  to be the new C/C++? :p

D is unsafe in that it lets you shoot yourself in the foot with a limited
amount of hassle. It has pointer arithmetics, manual memory management if
you want that, etc. It is however not unsafe in the same way as C/C++
(here's a boot with a gun attached to it, to use it safely, remove the
gun)

Also, there is SafeD, which is not yet implemented, but it's coming.
(http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/safed.html)

> Anyway, I've been looking for a modern and *safe* language, but without  
> the overkill of a Java VM or .NET runtime. My hope was with D, but you  
> seem to be convincing me otherwise...

It may or may not be. As mentioned above, it's still possible to ferk up
with D, but it's a lot harder than with C or C++.

> Does the "D is unsafe by intention" relate to D2.0, too?

D2 still has pointers and optional manual memory management, so yes.
D2 has fixed a lot of the unsafe things from D1, so no.

Clear enough? :p

-- 
Simen