Re: Isn't it about time for D3?

ketmar via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d at puremagic.com
Wed Jun 14 14:20:58 PDT 2017


H. S. Teoh wrote:

> 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

yeah. D should silently miscompile old code too: it seems that this is 
exactly what people want!


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list