CTFE ^^ (pow)

[Norm]

On Monday, 19 March 2018 at 04:15:26 UTC, rikki cattermole wrote:
> On 19/03/2018 5:05 PM, Norm wrote:
>> On Monday, 19 March 2018 at 03:53:07 UTC, rikki cattermole 
>> wrote:
>>> On 19/03/2018 4:43 PM, Norm wrote:
>>>> On Monday, 19 March 2018 at 03:14:51 UTC, rikki cattermole 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Did they at any point tell us that it was a blocker for 
>>>>> your company who was trialing D?
>>>>>
>>>>> Because I do not remember once in that time period of any 
>>>>> one saying this.
>>>>>
>>>>> Walter has gone out of his way in the past to help 
>>>>> companies, even flying to them on his own dime.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you want to be treated special, we need to have a reason 
>>>>> for you to be treated special, otherwise you're just like 
>>>>> everybody else complaining without giving back.
>>>>
>>>> We don't want to be treated special. We don't want to give 
>>>> back. This is the *entire* point.
>>>>
>>>> D claims to be "Industry Proven and Ready" but we have to 
>>>> submit PRs or get special treatment from Walter to use it 
>>>> effectively? Sorry, but this is why many feel that D is 
>>>> still just a hobby project.
>>>>
>>>> We are an organisation trying to get work done. D was a 
>>>> potential replacement of our existing C++/Python tool chain. 
>>>> Unfortunately it *requires* us to give back, which as I 
>>>> stated is not our business. Our business is the development 
>>>> of medical devices and supporting application software, not 
>>>> compiler or language development.
>>>
>>> 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.

No, compilers do not need to be certified for class B or class C 
software. These are the two highest safety classes for medical 
SW. Beyond class C SW is not allowed, e.g. safety critical 
interlocks such as the big red button to shut off a radiation 
dose or stop a robotic system.

Compilers are are treated as SOUP (Software of Unknown 
Provenance), i.e. a black box. Risk analysis leads to risk 
control measures that in turn ensure people don't die and this is 
done at the system and component level, not the codegen level. 
Verification is performed to ensure the system implements the 
requirements correctly, and subsequently the risk control 
measures. Not all requirements are risk control measures, but all 
requirements must be verified as correct.

Cheers,
Norm