Everyone who writes safety critical software should read this

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

On 11/2/13 10:29 AM, bearophile wrote:
> Andrei Alexandrescu:
>
>> How is this a response to what I wrote?
>
> I have said that sometimes you want to use the safer types even in a
> place where you have said could use the primitive types.

Then just use the safer types! I mentioned the possibility as, well, a 
possibility. But then how will you use the safer types to implement the 
safer types?

>> And to take that to its logical conclusion, we don't want the defaults
>> in the D language to cater to such applications.
>
> Integral safety (and few other kinds of safeties) are useful even in
> software that's not high integrity :-)

So is speed, and you're among the first to get miffed when we have a 
performance regression. And for a good reason. You're also one to clamor 
for backward compatibility, and it would be hard to imagine a more 
massive one. So just drop this.


Andrei