Shouldn't safety be the default.

[bachmeier]

On Tuesday, 26 December 2023 at 12:00:13 UTC, Sebastiaan Koppe 
wrote:

> I very much hope it does. It is a lot more economical.
>
> 9 out of 10 projects only need the features you mentioned 
> sparingly. It is less effort to mark those place `@trusted` 
> than the situation we are in now, where you need to sprinkle 
> `@safe` almost everywhere.
>
> Another way to look at is that the features you mentioned are 
> almost always used exclusively in low level code that best sits 
> behind an abstraction. If trusted is the default you need to 
> mark anything using it `@safe`, but if safe is the default you 
> only need to mark a few reusable low level pieces of code 
> `@trusted`.

The earlier proposal would have killed D. I no longer recall the 
details but it would have been miserable to interoperate with C 
code under that proposal. And without C interoperability, D is 
dead.

All that's needed is a compiler switch rather than breaking 
everyone's code. Or an easy way to shut it off. Neither of those 
were on the table.