Andrei's list of barriers to D adoption

[Timon Gehr via Digitalmars-d]

On 07.06.2016 10:54, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 6/7/2016 1:22 AM, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
>> So this is solved in modern C++.
>
> This is where we diverge. A language isn't safe unless it can
> mechanically guarantee that unsafe constructs are not used. Saying
> "don't write unsafe code" in C++ does not make it safe language.
>
> How would you know some random 10,000 line piece of C++ code is using
> std::vector instead of [ ]? How do you know that some random PR pulled
> into your project does not have [ ] in it? It's faith-based programming.
> Faith based programming does not scale and is not the point of @safe.

How do you know that some random @safe PR pulled into your project does 
not corrupt memory?