Safe mode in D?

[Maxim Fomin]

On Saturday, 19 October 2013 at 08:21:18 UTC, Max Samukha wrote:
> On Saturday, 19 October 2013 at 07:39:36 UTC, Maxim Fomin wrote:
>>
>> This is wrong. Compare safe D and C# in safe, checked mode (I 
>> suspect you tried to sell unchecked mode, unmanaged pointers 
>> and C++ code invocation as unsafe C# - there are also unsafe 
>> features like casts or unions in unsafe D, but this is 
>> irrelevant, we are comparing safe mode) and try to come up 
>> with examples of memory corruption in C#. At least I showed 4 
>> cases of memory corruption, 4 cases of broken immutable, 2 
>> cases of broken purity in safe D without casts, unions and 
>> unchekeced attributes of extern C (which is also hole in type 
>> system). So far, you provided only resentment that D was 
>> negatively compred with C#.
>
> I would agree if:
>
> 1. most of the cases you provided were not compiler bugs.

Wrong. Most of cases presented are frontend bugs, since all three
known compilers share the same frontend, they are also buggy. In
any case, D is not in a position like C, where there are plenty
of compilers. Most are stack to dmd/gdc/ldc. So, there is no way
to escape from this "just compiler bugs". You can throw "it is
compiler bug, but not language issue" into the trash (please also
D butthurt).

> 2. C#'s safety didn't have a price.

I didn't heard that C# would advertise itself as having speed
'more than C' or any nonsense like D promises about its safety.

> 3. C# had immutable, pure, etc.

But features which it does care to provide, are not bunch of
holes in type system. This is so opposite to D with strings,
shared, AAs, etc.