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

[Timon Gehr]

On 7/28/24 20:28, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 7/28/2024 6:49 AM, Timon Gehr wrote:
>> Why does this have to blow up in our face first? It is you who 
>> proclaimed "memory safety will kill C!"
> 
> I want D to be 100% memory safe as much or more than you do!
> ...

This is why I am pushing back on this. You are doing something that 
seems to undermine one of your own priorities.

> I am very concerned that making it difficult for programmers to 
> transition their code from unsafe to safe will mean - it doesn't happen.
> 
> Case in point - my struggles with getting the D front end @safe 
> definitely influence my thinking about this.

I am with you until this point, I just think the way to do it is to 
actually make interfaces memory safe. If you need more support from the 
compiler during the transition, put such features in there.

The dogfooding experience is an opportunity to improve the design of the 
toolbox. It's useful in general, e.g. maybe someone would like to enable 
certain safety checks in a `@trusted` function and only surgically 
disable the ones that are actually intended. This is what gave rise to 
the `@trusted` lambda antipattern, and there it would similarly be good 
to provide an alternative.