[OffTopic] A vulnerability postmortem on Network Security Services
sealabjaster at gmail.com
Sun Dec 5 19:57:18 UTC 2021
On Sunday, 5 December 2021 at 18:09:56 UTC, Greg Strong wrote:
> I'm willing to help out, provided either (A) the proposal
> cannot be unilaterally killed by Walter, or (B) he personally
> confirms that he is on board.
B is the most realistic option, people are rarely willing to give
up ultimate power for both good and bad intentions.
No matter how I think about, extern(C) being @safe by default
makes no sense. Even if it was written in a different language,
you have no information about *which* language and what safety
guarantees it (doesn't) provide. I just wish it wasn't the main
point of contention for @safe by default :(
Honestly I'd go as far as saying no C code should be marked as
even @trusted by a human (even wrapper funcs). But that
unfortunately turns into a "D with C" (@safe + @"trusted") vs "D
with no C"(@safe only) kind of argument.
And there's no where near enough libraries in D to make up for
not being able to interface with C.
While it's really unfortunate we haven't yet gotten @safe by
default, I'm still weary about it when code is still interfacing
with possible non- at safe languages via extern(C).
More information about the Digitalmars-d