Walter Bright wrote:
grauzone wrote:
Walter Bright wrote:
grauzone wrote:
If you mean memory safety, then yes and will probably forever be for
all practical uses (unless D gets implemented on a Java or .net like
VM).
A VM is neither necessary nor sufficient to make a language memory
safe. It's all in the semantics of the language.
Yes, but VM bytecode is a much smaller language than D, which makes it
far easier to verify for safety. In practice, SafeD will gradually
become actually safe as people use it, see it break, and you fix the
bugs. That's why I said for "all practical uses".
The Java VM didn't start out as completely safe, either, as people found
the holes they were fixed.
Because the bytecode language is much smaller than a high level language
like D, it's easier for Java. Also, Java was planned to be safe right
from the beginning, while SafeD is a rather unnatural feature added on
the top of a complex existing language. To make it safe, you need to
forbid a set of features, which inconveniences the programmer and will
possibly reduce code efficiency. I'm not even opposed to the idea of
SafeD, I'm just worrying that forcing all D code to adhere to SafeD by
default will cause more trouble than gain.
