Safety, undefined behavior, @safe, @trusted

[grauzone]

Walter Bright wrote:
> grauzone wrote:
>> If you mean memory safety, then yes and will probably forever be for 
>> all practical uses (unless D gets implemented on a Java or .net like VM).
> 
> A VM is neither necessary nor sufficient to make a language memory safe. 
> It's all in the semantics of the language.

Yes, but VM bytecode is a much smaller language than D, which makes it 
far easier to verify for safety. In practice, SafeD will gradually 
become actually safe as people use it, see it break, and you fix the 
bugs. That's why I said for "all practical uses".