dsimcha wrote:
== Quote from grauzone ([email protected])'s article
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Also, does anybody really care about SafeD, or would it be better if we
had some sort of valgrind for D? Maybe this is one of those features
which first sounded nice, but then it turned out it's better to drop them.
I'm starting to get that feeling. It seems like D was just not meant to be a
fully safe language. It was built from the ground up to be a better C++, i.e. a
close to the metal language that assumes the programmer knows what he/she is
doing, albeit one with enough high level features that it doesn't require
attention to the irrelevant in day-to-day programming. Shoe-horning D
(originally
designed as close-to-the-metal/programmer-knows-best) into a safe Java-like
language is going to work about as well as shoe-horning C (originally a very
low-level portable assembler) into C++ (a language that tries to be high-level
but
is too hobbled by C compatibility to actually achieve it).
Example (Simple program that has no chance of working in SafeD):
import std.getopt;
void main(string[] args) {
uint foo;
getopt(args, "someParam", &foo); // Not allowed in SafeD.
}
Personally, if an example like that won't even compile, I refuse to ever use
SafeD
for any project I do because it is simply too rigid. On the other hand, if it
does compile, SafeD provides no guarantees and is next to useless.
getopt takes pointers just because variadic references aren't available.
It's not a matter of principles. I agree that a useful module such as
getopt should work in safe mode.
Andrei
