Clay language

[Walter Bright]

bearophile wrote:
> (Reading about safer language subsets like SPARK and MISRA I have learnt that
> having a language safe on default is better

Reading about a language is not good enough to make such decisions. You need to 
have considerable experience with them. I've seen a lot of claims about 
languages that simply do not pan out. Exception specifications in Java is a 
prime example - it took years of experience to discover that was a really bad 
idea. It had the opposite effect from what was intended (and touted).


 > Take also a look at how Ada specifies interfaces across modules.

Ada is a failed language.


 > A language needs to be designed with a balance between low verbosity and 
safety, here in my opinion D has chosen too much for the low verbosity (as 
Walter reminds D's anti-hijacking support in imports is a nice idea, but I think 
it's not enough).

D's anti-hijacking nails it. You get the benefits of low verbosity, and it's 
perfectly safe. It's a lot more than just a "nice idea".