Memory safety depends entirely on GC ?

[Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d]

On 2/24/15 9:47 AM, deadalnix wrote:
> On Tuesday, 24 February 2015 at 16:22:47 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> Just replied to Marc about this. I should have phrased my response as
>> "I don't know of a _reasonable_ solution". BTW please don't call me
>> dishonest anymore, it's doubly inappropriate seeing as we also work
>> together. You wouldn't think there's an actual possibility I go around
>> lying to people about such stuff. Thanks.
>>
>> Andrei
>
> You have my apologies.
>
> Still, qualifying something of _reasonable_ or not do not constitute a
> solid argument IMO. That is where my frustration come from here. You are
> arguing as if nothing was proposed when various persons made proposals.
> That do not foster progress. If actual criticism of the proposals were
> made, then we could argue about these criticisms, or come up with
> improvement of the proposals, but if you argue as if these proposal do
> not exists, we are condemned to talk past each other and no progress can
> be made.

I also owe you apologies for not acknowledging that work. I find the 
proposal too complicated for what it provides and that's the short and 
long of it. It's easy to make a large and complex language addition to 
support any sensible abstraction. That doesn't make it automatically good.

Andrei