Zoran Isailovski wrote:
Oh... I've got the wrong impression from the papers about D. (But then, why
would someone design an *unsafe* language *by intention*??? For that, we've got
C and C++, don't we?)
Anyway, I've been looking for a modern and *safe* language, but without the
overkill of a Java VM or .NET runtime. My hope was with D, but you seem to be
convincing me otherwise...
Does the "D is unsafe by intention" relate to D2.0, too?
D tries to make it easy to do the safe thing. It's a systems language,
so it has to allow you to do unsafe things without too much trouble --
but usually with some not-too-pretty syntax to indicate that you're
doing something unsafe.
In this case, D1 fails. D2 works, though at the cost of additional,
often unnecessary, heap allocation. Since D is a systems language, this
is not good and is due to change soon. At least, I think Walter said he
plans to implement scope delegates in D2.
