D - Unsafe and doomed

[Jesse Phillips]

On Saturday, 4 January 2014 at 03:16:37 UTC, Jesse Phillips wrote:
> Basically D provides safety, but it also provides means to do 
> unsafe things. I'm not familiar with Rust, but I wouldn't be 
> surprised if unsafe actions could also be taken.

Haha, he covers that in the next section, just before I stopped 
reading to reply.

"Rust still provides an escape hatch to allow students to 
experiment with unsafe code."

So realy Rust requires safety by default while D allows unsafe 
code by default. This leads me to believe that the reason Rust is 
safer is three fold, the SafeD system (@safe, @trusted, @system) 
isn't fully implemented, not enough libraries are marking @safe, 
and we don't have a good library to encapsulate the unsafe manual 
memory management (a library could probably get pretty close to 
what Rust's compiler does).