Scenario: OpenSSL in D language, pros/cons

[via Digitalmars-d]

On Monday, 5 May 2014 at 09:32:40 UTC, JR wrote:
> On Sunday, 4 May 2014 at 21:18:24 UTC, Daniele M. wrote:
>> And then comes my next question: except for that malloc-hack, 
>> would it have been possible to write it in @safe D? I guess 
>> that if not, module(s) could have been made un- at safe. Not 
>> saying that a similar separation of concerns was not possible 
>> in OpenSSL itself, but that D could have made it less 
>> development-expensive in my opinion.
>
> TDPL SafeD visions notwithstanding, @safe is very very limiting.
>
> I/O is forbidden so simple Hello Worlds are right out, let 
> alone advanced socket libraries.

I/O is not forbidden, it's just that writeln and friends 
currently can't be made safe, but that is being worked on AFAIK. 
While I/O usually goes through the OS, the system calls can be 
manually verified and made @trusted.