D not considered memory safe

[bachmeier]

On Monday, 8 July 2024 at 14:08:49 UTC, Dom DiSc wrote:
> On Monday, 8 July 2024 at 13:20:45 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
>> We have very few details on what this will look like for 
>> someone that doesn't want it. Not breaking existing code is 
>> far from sufficient for those writing unsafe code.
>
> Sorry, but having unsafe code is burden enough.

This is not helpful. If the biggest selling point is working with 
legacy C code, unsafe code needs to be a core part of the 
language, and it needs to be as easy as possible. (As in, as easy 
as it is right now.)

> I don't see any need to help people continue to write unsafe 
> code.

D will quickly die without unsafe code. I would certainly have no 
reason to continue using it. Rust has the small market for "safe 
by default" code. D can not and will not compete with Rust on 
this - the battle is over and all parties have moved on.

> If at all, it is enough that it will be still possible to write 
> unsafe code. Its not required to make that easy.

We can already do it. There's no "make that easy" to do.

> Why can't those people be bothered with giving -unsafe as 
> compile parameter?

Proposed and rejected. Whereas safe by default is already 
available with a switch.