Coverity tool

[retard]

Wed, 10 Feb 2010 12:47:41 -0800, Walter Bright wrote:

> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> "Walter Bright" <newshound1 at digitalmars.com> wrote in message
>> news:hkv1mg$s6e$1 at digitalmars.com...
>>> retard wrote:
>>>> Tue, 09 Feb 2010 18:49:31 -0800, Walter Bright wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> D has moved a lot towards supplying by default a lot of what
>>>>> Coverity claims to do. By making such an expensive tool irrelevant
>>>>> for D, we can make D much more cost effective.
>>>> D doesn't provide non-nullable types
>>> Yes, there have been a couple long threads about that. Dereferencing a
>>> null pointer is a bug, but not a security/safety issue.
>>>
>>>
>> Right, it's just not worthwhile for a language to provide help avoiding
>> bugs.
> 
> 
> It's a benefit/cost issue. There are no bug-preventing features that are
> without cost, the idea is to maximize the ratio.

What exactly is the cost here? The non-nullability invariant can be 
checked on compile time. It incurs no runtime overhead. Also the notation 
can be quite terse, as we have seen in Other Languages(tm).