An interesting consequence of safety requirements

[Michel Fortin]

On 2009-11-04 14:15:47 -0500, grauzone <none at example.net> said:

> Also, does anybody really care about SafeD, or would it be better if we 
> had some sort of valgrind for D? Maybe this is one of those features 
> which first sounded nice, but then it turned out it's better to drop 
> them.

I'm interested in SafeD a lot since it guards against buffer overruns 
and memory corruption errors, which represents a big slice of the most 
dangerous security risks.

Sure it comes with small performance drawbacks (array bound checks, 
forced dynamic allocation in some cases). But that shouldn't matter as 
you can move performance-critical code to unsafe/trusted modules as an 
optimization (hopefully with more security checkups on these), or just 
disable SafeD altogether if that really makes a difference.

But most of my code isn't performance critical and thus most of my code 
should be in SafeD.

-- 
Michel Fortin
michel.fortin at michelf.com
http://michelf.com/