D not considered memory safe

[aberba]

On Saturday, 6 July 2024 at 22:48:32 UTC, Sebastian Nibisz wrote:
> On Saturday, 6 July 2024 at 14:56:27 UTC, aberba wrote:
>> To say something "doesn't have safety tuned on by default" vs 
>> "something is unsafe" communicates two different meanings.
>
> Is a car that has airbags deactivated by default before each 
> drive safe?

This is not a good comparison. You could have come up with 
anything else unrelated besides this to still make it seem like 
you have a point.

D has array bounds check and many others turned on by default. 
Current D chose to give Dev more freedom and the tools to turn on 
strict checks when that's desired...as long as you're okay with 
the cons.

If rusts way of shoveling their strict ownership model in your 
throat was the overall best, many other system programming 
language after it would be doing same.