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

[Kagamin via Digitalmars-d]

On Wednesday, 8 March 2017 at 15:48:47 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
> What I'm not buying is that the existence of UB in some 
> circumstances justifies introducing more cases where UB is 
> unexpectedly introduced. It's a continuum. Generally, if you 
> add more failure modes, you will have more exploits.

With buffer overflows you're already sort of screwed, so assumes 
don't really change the picture. If you chose UB yourself, why 
would you care? Performance obviously took precedence.

> I might need to point out that -release does not disable bounds 
> checking in @safe code while it has been stated that -release 
> introduces UB for assertion failures in @safe code.

UB in safe code doesn't sound good no matter the cause.