D for safety critical applications

[Dominikus Dittes Scherkl]

On Tuesday, 9 February 2021 at 10:10:05 UTC, IGotD- wrote:
> Just to put it into some perspective. I have worked with so 
> called certified C/C++ compilers in the automotive industry. I 
> remember encountered several bugs in those compilers as well 
> they are usually far behind when adopting the new language 
> standards.
As I said, fixing bugs is NOT required for certification.
It is only necessary to document them.

> The certified compilers which are not better than GCC are 
> usually proprietary and cost money for each user.
You can qualify a tool to be used in an ISO compliant build 
process on your own (in your company). We do this regularly for 
every little script we use. But to qualify something as complex 
as a compiler is a huge lot of work.
This is why getting an official certificate (from e.g. TÜV) is so 
expensive that a vendor NEEDS to sell it and can't give it away 
for free.

> Here we have a product that is essentially worse than GCC and 
> cost money. What it is really about is a form of corruption.
Harsh words.
If you don't want to pay for a compiler, qualify it yourself. 
You'll see it cost you at least the same amount of money (or 
time).

> Compare this to GCC, when was the last time you encountered a 
> bug in that compiler? I can't remember any.
But this is only because also there the bugs are quiet good 
documented in bugzilla and so can easily be avoided.
Having this documentation will help you a lot in qualifying the 
compiler yourself.