Safety, undefined behavior, @safe, @trusted

[Walter Bright]

grauzone wrote:
> 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".

The Java VM didn't start out as completely safe, either, as people found 
the holes they were fixed.