Could D be used by Jonathan Blow rather jai language?

[Bruce Carneal]

On Saturday, 21 November 2020 at 02:42:13 UTC, Ola Fosheim 
Grostad wrote:
> On Saturday, 21 November 2020 at 01:52:36 UTC, Bruce Carneal 
> wrote:
>> If "it", whatever that is, precludes safe parallelism in 
>> libraries or language extensions then "it" should be removed 
>> from the language.
>>
>> Again, defaults really matter here.  If the right way is the 
>> default way then leaving the "wrong" way escape hatch costs 
>> less, in my view, than forcing two or more languages.
>
> Well, @safe just means memory safe, not sure if it is meant to 
> also cover multi threading safety?
>
> The guarantees are not very clear to me.
>

I've only read about @safe referring to the memory safety that 
you noted.

> It is also not clear what happens if you allocated something as 
> shared, cast away shared and the call free(). Are you allowed 
> to have two separate heaps?

I don't have a comprehensive understanding of where D is at and 
where it is headed wrt memory safety models.  The @live stuff 
looks a little "iffy".  Hopefully Walter's upcoming talk will 
help.

>
> It is unclear if D programmers follow the same principles or 
> just rely on testing with the current runtime. If it is the 
> latter then it will be difficult to get clean nonbreaking  
> semantics.

As you note, some language advances may not be practical for D 
but others could be built atop extant automated/correct checking 
and some could be independent, never-existed-before, capabilities 
where backward compatibility is not a concern: type functions, 
monadic type variables, new memory guarantees, arbitrarily 
prolonged "compile time", ...