Isn't it about time for D3?

[H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d]

On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 11:45:43PM +0300, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
> 
> > On Wednesday, 14 June 2017 at 12:22:36 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
> > > If a code is to be left untouched but the compiler not archived
> > > then the code must be recompiled and amended as needed with each
> > > new compiler that is accepted in the workflow.
> > 
> > I don't disagree with the general sentiment than one have to evolve
> > the codebase along with the tooling, but if C, C++, Python and
> > JavaScript didn't provide backwards compatibility in their
> > maintained "production lines"
> 
> at least C doesn't: almost all old-enough code is broken by various
> "UB".

The difference is that unlike D deprecations, the C code will still
compile and appear to work (for the most part, anyway), thus giving
people the illusion that their old code is still "OK".  When actually,
the compiler may have done something unexpected with the UBs and thus
inadvertently introduced security holes.

Of course, none of this matters, since when was the last time bad C code
has caused security problems? :-P


T

-- 
I am a consultant. My job is to make your job redundant. -- Mr Tom