On 1/28/11, Walter Bright <newshou...@digitalmars.com> wrote: > I think one of the reasons DbC has not paid off is it still requires a > significant investment of effort by the programmer. It's too easy to not > bother.
Another way to look at it is that programmers are enjoying the safety of using regular D so much as to not even think about using DbC. The language does guarantee a lot more than C++. The irony here is that C++ is the one that desperately needs integrated DbC, and yet D, the safer language, is the one providing DbC for free. :p In other words, we get the candy and the cake.
