If you needed any more evidence that memory safety is the future...

[Guillaume Piolat via Digitalmars-d]

On Friday, 3 March 2017 at 02:48:46 UTC, Nick Sabalausky 
(Abscissa) wrote:
> I think it's safe enough to just go ahead and interpret it as 
> "...evidence that memory safety is important and SHOULD be the 
> direction we take."

In D you have less memory corruption than in C++, which in its 
modern incarnation has much less than in C, etc. That C programs 
have a lot of healine-making memory corruptions says not much 
about D.

Unsafe D provides:
- initialization
- bounds checking
- slices

and it does take away a lot of memory corruptions.

My point is that memory safety beyond what unsafe D may not 
provides as much value as it sounds. I could quote the Pareto 
rule, which is gimmicky but exactly how I feel about it.