CTFE ^^ (pow)

[rikki cattermole]

On 19/03/2018 5:23 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Monday, March 19, 2018 17:15:26 rikki cattermole via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>> On 19/03/2018 5:05 PM, Norm wrote:
>>> On Monday, 19 March 2018 at 03:53:07 UTC, rikki cattermole wrote:
>>>> You just said the magic word, medical.
>>>>
>>>> D was never an appropriate fit here.
>>>>
>>>> dmd's backend has been for thirty years (or so) been up to recently
>>>> licensed so that you may not use it for this purpose. Nothing has
>>>> changed here.
>>>
>>> I have no idea what you're talking about now.
>>>
>>> What has the backend license got to do with medical?
>>
>> The code generation capabilities of dmd has not been certified for
>> medical usage.
>>
>> In essence, if it generated bad code, kills somebody, your the one at
>> fault, even if the source is fine. You would end up begging to settle
>> out of court.
>>
>> It is my understanding that medical software manufacturers pay for their
>> compilers already certified. So that suggests to me that you're not
>> exactly life threatening but I would still caution you away from D even
>> if that bit is just my own opinion.
> 
> It may be there are compilers certified for that sort of thing (I'm
> certainly no expert on the subject), but AFAIK, basically every compiler
> ever says that it's not certified or guaranteed for anything, because the
> compiler writers don't want to get sued if something goes wrong regardless
> of what you're using it for.
> 
> - Jonathan M Davis
> 

Here is clang's[0], nothing about medical. Just you can't sue us when it 
goes wrong.

Compare against[1], clearly its a big deal safety wise. This is why I 
will say specifically even for D that I love, do not use it here.

[0] http://releases.llvm.org/2.8/LICENSE.TXT
[1] 
https://developer.arm.com/products/software-development-tools/compilers/arm-compiler/safety