Scenario: OpenSSL in D language, pros/cons

[Paulo Pinto via Digitalmars-d]

On Monday, 5 May 2014 at 06:35:07 UTC, Jonathan M Davis via 
Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Sun, 04 May 2014 13:29:33 +0000
> Meta via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d at puremagic.com> wrote:
>> The only language I would
>> really trust is one in which it is impossible to write unsafe
>> code, because you can then know that the developers can't use
>> such unsafe hacks, even if they wanted to.
>
> Realistically, I think that you ultimately have to rely on the 
> developers
> doing a good job. Good tools help a great deal (including a 
> programming
> language that's safe by default while still generally being 
> efficient), but if
> you try and restrict the programmer such that they can only do 
> things that are
> guaranteed to be safe, I think that you're bound to make it 
> impossible to do a
> number of things, which tends to not only be very frustrating 
> to the
> programmers, but it can also make it impossible to get the 
> performance that
> you need in some circumstances.
>
> So, while you might be able to better trust a library written 
> in a language
> that's designed to make certain types of problems impossible, I 
> don't think
> that it's realistic for that language to get used much in 
> anything performance
> critical like an SSL implementation.
>
> Ultimately, I think that the trick is to make things as safe as 
> they can be
> without actually making it so that the programmer can't do what 
> they need to
> be able to do. And while, I don't think that D hit the perfect 
> balance on that
> one (e.g. we should have made @safe the default if we wanted 
> that), I think
> that we've done a good job of it overall - certainly far better 
> than C or C++.
>
> - Jonathan M Davis

Sometimes I wonder how much money have C design decisions cost 
the industry in terms of anti-virus, static and dynamic analyzers 
tools, operating systems security enforcements, security research 
and so on.

All avoidable with bound checking by default and no implicit 
conversions between arrays and pointers.

--
Paulo