D - Unsafe and doomed

[Maxim Fomin]

On Saturday, 4 January 2014 at 02:09:51 UTC, NoUseForAName wrote:
> This piece (recently seen on the Hacker News front page):
>
> http://rust-class.org/pages/using-rust-for-an-undergraduate-os-course.html
>
> .. includes a pretty damning assessment of D as "unsafe" 
> (compared to Rust) and generally doomed. I remember hearing 
> Walter Bright talking a lot about "safe code" during a D 
> presentation. Was that about a different kind of safety? Is the 
> author just wrong? Basically I want to hear the counterargument 
> (if there is one).

Quoting: "The biggest disadvantage of D compared to Rust is that 
it does not have the kind of safety perspective that Rust does, 
and in particular does not provide safe constructs for 
concurrency. "

On surface this looks like explaining why D is unsafe, but the 
article fails to study real issues which were discussed in 
newsgroups or were filed in bugzilla. From my experience, there 
are much better opportunities to elaborate on why D is unsafe. 
Quoted citation looks extremely naive.

"The other argument against using D is that it has been around 
more than 10 years now, without much adoption and appears to be 
more likely on its way out rather than increasing popularity."

I doubt.

Why have you posted this ungrounded Rust advertisement anyway?