Maybe D is right about GC after all !

[codephantom]

On Wednesday, 27 December 2017 at 20:24:04 UTC, Walter Bright 
wrote:
>
> This illustrates my point if it was unclear:
>
> C++:
>     int foo(int* p) { return p[1]; }
>     int bar(int i) { return foo(&i); }
>
>     clang++ -c test.cpp -Wall
>
>
> D:
>     @safe:
>     int foo(int* p) { return p[1]; }
>     int bar(int i) {return foo(&i); }
>
>     dmd -c test.d
>     test.d(3): Error: safe function 'test.foo' cannot index 
> pointer 'p'
>     test.d(4): Error: cannot take address of parameter i in 
> @safe function bar

Well,I can press the accelerator on my car to the floor, and 
crash the car.

But is that a problem with the car, or the way I used it 
(referring to the C++ portion of your example)? Would be better, 
and fairer, to write that portion in modern C++, and then make 
the comparison with D.

And sure, we can (and do) make cars that modify the acceleraton 
potential, but then you can't do burnouts ;-(

So safety certainly does have real value..but it always wants to 
take something away. (and unfortunately, we're becoming a very 
risk averse society, with more and more freedoms being taken away 
in the name of 'safety' - but I divert..)

Of course, the nice thing about D, is that we can (for the most 
part) switch it from one to the other...so I like that a lot.

But when I really want to put the pedal to the metal, I still 
look to C.

(although, one day the government will try to make C illegal too 
I guess).