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

[Dukc via Digitalmars-d]

On Wednesday, 8 March 2017 at 15:48:47 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
> On 07.03.2017 16:48, Kagamin wrote:
> I might need to point out that -release does not disable bounds 
> checking in @safe code while it has been stated that -release 
> introduces UB for assertion failures in @safe code.
>
> There is no flag for disabling assertion/contract checking 
> without potentially introducing new UB.
>
> Why is this the best possible situation?

Even with a failed assertion, I believe @safe does still 
guarantee that no memory violations will happen. The program will 
go awry, but it will just misbehave. It won't stomp memory that 
might be of another type or even executable code. I believe 
that's why it's done how it is.