D not considered memory safe

[ryuukk_]

On Monday, 8 July 2024 at 14:37:52 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
> 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.

+1

AI devs picked C, not rust