Shouldn't safety be the default.

[Paulo Pinto]

On Tuesday, 26 December 2023 at 17:27:46 UTC, ryuukk_ wrote:
> On Tuesday, 26 December 2023 at 14:46:45 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 26 December 2023 at 12:39:46 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 26 December 2023 at 12:00:13 UTC, Sebastiaan 
>>> Koppe wrote:
>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Rust, Go, Swift, C# are doing just fine with the requirement 
>> that C interop must be explicitly marked as unsafe.
>
> Microsoft sells tooling and services, they have an army of 
> "evangelists" to corrupt, i mean to lobby companies / 
> governments all around the world, these people are driven by an 
> economical motive to vendor lock you
>
> Same for Apple/Swift, and same for Google/Go
>
> Rust is similar, as it consist of a conglomerate of them all
>
> I don't use D because i want corporate-credibility, i use it 
> because it gets the job done faster than anything else (is it 
> even still the case btw?)

Hardly, unfortunately, unless there are libraries available, 
which is increasingly harder as many aren't updated to keep up 
with D vlatest.

Which makes this safety discussion a moot point, too late to 
change it, even with the languages that prove otherwise, those 
libraries wouldn't be updated to safety by default.