[Not really OT] Crowdstrike Analysis: It was a NULL pointer from the memory unsafe C++ language.

[Timon Gehr]

On 7/28/24 09:02, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 7/25/2024 12:36 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
>> I am taking issue with throwing overboard even the aspiration of 
>> memory safety. You won't get D widely recognized as a safer language 
>> if its ecosystem is actively encouraged to build on careless 
>> `@trusted` slapping-on, even on functions where it is completely 
>> obvious that they have an unsafe interface.
> 
> There isn't a transition path to @safe by default unless there is a way 
> to do it incrementally.
> 
> I've done many transitions of large programs from one form to another. 
> Doing it all at once does not work. It doesn't matter how hard you try. 
> It doesn't work.

I am aware. If you think the consequence is that we should abuse 
`@trusted` then your reasoning is flawed. If you think abusing 
`@trusted` is not safewashing, then your reasoning is flawed.

If you think safewashing will be temporary and not make it into released 
products, you will be wrong. This will happen even when you do not 
encourage it, but it is disappointing if you do. I am also disappointed 
you are choosing to defend this when called out. I think a good way to 
move forward would instead be to think about what additional tools are 
helpful to allow people to achieve their incremental safety goals 
without abusing `@trusted`. It's clear that the current design is not 
cutting it for people.

Why does this have to blow up in our face first? It is you who 
proclaimed "memory safety will kill C!"