Vision for the D language - stabilizing complexity?

[deadalnix via Digitalmars-d]

On Friday, 8 July 2016 at 05:26:44 UTC, ag0aep6g wrote:
>> And so on, @safe only mean safe if you do not do this and that,
>
> As far as I'm aware, the dictatorship agrees that the holes in 
> @safe are bugs that need fixing.

That's a completely meaningless statement, plus overall the 
dictatorship position is completely inconsistent.

It is meaningless because sometime, you have A and B that are 
both safe on their own, but doing both is unsafe. In which case A 
or B need to be banned, but nothing allows to know which one. 
This isn't a bug, this is a failure to have a principled approach 
to safety.

The position is inconsistent because the dictatorship refuses to 
compromise on mutually exclusive goals. For instance, @safe is 
defined as ensuring memory safety. But not against undefined 
behaviors (in fact Walter promote the use of UB in various 
situations, for instance when it comes to shared). You CANNOT 
have undefined behavior that are defined as being memory safe.