Maybe D is right about GC after all !

[codephantom]

On Tuesday, 26 December 2017 at 10:00:25 UTC, Paolo Invernizzi 
wrote:
> IMHO, the lost list of vulnerability in code shipped by "first 
> class enterprises" is just crying out that C/C++ is not 
> mechanically checkable.
> And we are talking about company that can literally spend an 
> Everest of money on that.
>
> /Paolo

Well, the 'mechanics of checking' continue to need improvement, 
whether it's C, C++, D, or whatever....

A language that is flexible enough to do the things you can do 
with such a language, comes at a cost.. which is safety (or 
program correctness to be precise). Flexibility breeds bugs! 
That's just how it is. It's inescapable.

And I doubt that it has anything to do with how much money you 
can spend.

In the example below, which is D code, I simply have to 'forget' 
to annotate with @safe, and then it's anyone's guess at to what 
will happen (at least in the second example)

i.e. the mechanical checks don't occur because I simply 'forgot' 
to do something.

// ---
module test;

import std.stdio;

// from: 
https://dlang.org/blog/2016/09/28/how-to-write-trusted-code-in-d/

// look at how flexible D is...
void main()
{
     auto buf = new int[1];

     //buf[2] = 1; // compiles ok, even with @safe.
                   // but get range violation at runtime,
                   // whether you use @safe or not
                   // (unless you've disabled bounds checking)

     buf.ptr[2] = 1; // compiles ok, runs ok  - or does it?
                     // however, if you 'remember' to use @safe,
                     // then it won't compile, and you're safe.

}
// -----