Andrei's list of barriers to D adoption

[Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d]

On 6/7/2016 1:22 AM, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
> So this is solved in modern C++.

This is where we diverge. A language isn't safe unless it can mechanically 
guarantee that unsafe constructs are not used. Saying "don't write unsafe code" 
in C++ does not make it safe language.

How would you know some random 10,000 line piece of C++ code is using 
std::vector instead of [ ]? How do you know that some random PR pulled into your 
project does not have [ ] in it? It's faith-based programming. Faith based 
programming does not scale and is not the point of @safe.