D - Unsafe and doomed

[Walter Bright]

On 1/3/2014 6:27 PM, Kelet wrote:
> With Rust, there are no dangling or null pointers. This means that if a pointer
> exists, it points to a valid object of the appropriate type. When a pointer does
> not point to a valid object of the appropriate type, accessing the content at
> the pointer results in undefined behavior or an error in languages that allow
> it. Rust implements all of these pointer safety checks at compile time, so they
> do not incur a performance penalty. While `@safe` helps reduce this class of
> logic errors, it does not go so far as Rust -- you can still have null and
> dangling pointers, hence it is usually considered inferior with regards to
> safety.

Null pointers are not a safety issue. Safety means no memory corruption.


> There was a SafeD[1] subset of D being worked on, but I'm not sure if it
> is active anymore.

That became @safe, which is very much active.