If you needed any more evidence that memory safety is the future...

[Moritz Maxeiner via Digitalmars-d]

On Wednesday, 8 March 2017 at 13:14:19 UTC, XavierAP wrote:
> On Wednesday, 8 March 2017 at 12:42:37 UTC, Moritz Maxeiner 
> wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 7 March 2017 at 22:07:51 UTC, XavierAP wrote:
>>> Plus statistics can prove nothing -- this logical truth 
>>> cannot be overstated.
>>
>> It's called empirical evidence and it's one of the most 
>> important techniques in science[2] to create foundation for a 
>> hypothesis.
>
> No, mistaking historical data as empirically valid is the most 
> dangerous scientific mistake. The empirical method requires all 
> conditions to be controlled, in order for factors to be 
> isolated, and every experiment to be reproducible.

This is true for controlled experiments like the one I pointed to 
and this model works fine for those sciences where controlled 
experiments are applicable (e.g. physics).
For (soft) sciences where human behaviour is a factor - and it 
usually is one you cannot reliably control - using 
quasi-experiments with a high sample size is a generally accepted 
practice to accumulate empirical data.