Maybe D is right about GC after all !
rjframe
dlang at ryanjframe.com
Wed Dec 27 15:37:22 UTC 2017
On Tue, 26 Dec 2017 14:54:14 -0800, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 12/26/2017 1:03 AM, Paolo Invernizzi wrote:
>> The point is that the presence of one @safe: line in the module can be
>> mechanically checked, over one million devs working on a codebase.
>>
>> The whole point of Walter argumentation is 'mechanically'.
>
> That's right. C++ is based on faith in the programmer using best
> practices. D is not based on faith, it can be automatically checked.
If the programmer opts-in to those checks... it's a +1 for pragmatism but
does make marketing the language a bit weird -- one-liners spawn
objections to the integrity of the claim (such as a portion of this
thread; if there are objections within the community, how much more will
we find objections outside it!).
When I hear someone talk about a memory-safe language (especially as a
major feature), I do think memory-safe by default. The thing is, D does
have support for memory-safety by default (bound-checked arrays, etc.),
and allows you to opt-in to greater safety guarantees; but that's not what
many think of when they think memory-safe (it doesn't really help that
every language provides their own, slightly different, definition).
And D has faith that programmers using @trusted know what they're doing
(for both writing and calling the function). There is no avoiding trust in
a useful language.
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list