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

[Moritz Maxeiner via Digitalmars-d]

On Friday, 3 March 2017 at 16:38:52 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
> On Friday, 3 March 2017 at 02:11:38 UTC, Moritz Maxeiner wrote:
>> My major gripe, though, is still that people tend to create 
>> "safe" wrappers around "unsafe" (mostly) C libraries, which 
>> (in the sense of safety) doesn't really help me as a developer 
>> at all
>
> Wrappers are needed because C libraries have unsafe (and 
> underdocumented) API that's easy to get wrong. I saw it 
> happening twice in druntime. Safety is like optimization: you 
> can handle it one or twice, but code handles it always, that 
> makes a difference.

And the wrappers can get it wrong just the same as if I'd done it 
myself, i.e. I need to either audit the wrapper's code or trust 
yet one more (or multiple) persons to get things right. Of course 
you're right about the reduction of points of failure, but that 
still doesn't help me have more confidence in them.