confusing (buggy?) closure behaviour

[Zoran Isailovski]

Simen Kjaeraas Wrote:

> 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

Yepp! Thanks! :))