On 02/07/2024 1:40 AM, Brian Callahan wrote:
> ...at least according to Bleeping Computer: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/cisa-most-critical-open-source-projects-not-using-memory-safe-code/amp/
> 
> "Memory-unsafe languages are those that do not provide built-in memory management mechanisms, burdening the developer with this responsibility and increasing the likelihood of errors. Examples of such cases are C, C++, Objective-C, Assembly, Cython, and D."

They are indeed correct that D isn't memory safe however they are conflating multiple things here.

D has no solution to temporal safety which is what Rust has via its borrow checker.

For D the first step to temporal safety would be owner escape analysis which I am currently working on. However it is expensive as to do it properly means you need a DFA.

We do have a GC which does means we have memory safety in terms of lifetimes or non-owning data structures. Nor does this help with the stack.

Data races on the other hand is temporal safety + atomics + locks + immutable. We're missing what is needed to pull all that together right now as one feature.

On Monday, 1 July 2024 at 13:40:41 UTC, Brian Callahan wrote:
> ...at least according to Bleeping Computer: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/cisa-most-critical-open-source-projects-not-using-memory-safe-code/amp/
>
> "Memory-unsafe languages are those that do not provide built-in memory management mechanisms, burdening the developer with this responsibility and increasing the likelihood of errors. Examples of such cases are C, C++, Objective-C, Assembly, Cython, and D."

Yay..... The cia is going to push rust on unpaid devs what could go wrong

On Mon, Jul 01, 2024 at 02:51:12PM +0000, Monkyyy via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Monday, 1 July 2024 at 13:40:41 UTC, Brian Callahan wrote:
> > ...at least according to Bleeping Computer: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/cisa-most-critical-open-source-projects-not-using-memory-safe-code/amp/
> > 
> > "Memory-unsafe languages are those that do not provide built-in memory management mechanisms, burdening the developer with this responsibility and increasing the likelihood of errors. Examples of such cases are C, C++, Objective-C, Assembly, Cython, and D."
> 
> Yay..... The cia is going to push rust on unpaid devs what could go wrong

https://xkcd.com/2347/


T

-- 
No! I'm not in denial!

On 7/1/24 16:00, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> 
> D would I think need to be safe by default and use dip1000 by default to be appropriately labeled safe.
> 
> I’m still trying to find out more about the criteria, because I don’t think it discusses how languages were put into these buckets of safe and unsafe.

Well, it cannot be the criteria cited in the OP:
> "Memory-unsafe languages are those that do not provide built-in memory management mechanisms, burdening the developer with this responsibility and increasing the likelihood of errors. Examples of such cases are C, C++, Objective-C, Assembly, Cython, and D."

This is plainly incorrect. D has a GC, which is a built-in memory management mechanism.

Safety is not about what you can do, but about what errors you can't make. I guess what's maybe holding D back a bit is the tendency of D programmers to opt for malloc-backed data structures with unestricted `ref` access to elements. DIP1000 can hep but is a bit restricted.

But ultimately technical concerns are probably secondary, and it is mostly about marketing (and what kind of programmers that attracts for building the ecosystem):

> With the D Programming Language, write fast, read fast, and run fast.
> 
> Fast code, fast.

Compare this to:

> A language empowering everyone to build reliable and efficient software.
> Reliability: Rust’s rich type system and ownership model guarantee memory-safety and thread-safety — enabling you to eliminate many classes of bugs at compile-time. 

Technically those guarantees are not fully reliable, but the main webpage says they are right in your face, that's perhaps necessary, or even sufficient.

On Tuesday, 2 July 2024 at 21:57:14 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
>
> This is plainly incorrect. D has a GC, which is a built-in memory management mechanism.

Your thinking logically and not with hype and trends, and that's clearly not what the cia is about, now bad open source dev learn rust

On 7/1/2024 6:40 AM, Brian Callahan wrote:
> ...at least according to Bleeping Computer: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/cisa-most-critical-open-source-projects-not-using-memory-safe-code/amp/
> 
> "Memory-unsafe languages are those that do not provide built-in memory management mechanisms, burdening the developer with this responsibility and increasing the likelihood of errors. Examples of such cases are C, C++, Objective-C, Assembly, Cython, and D."

Now they're complaining that D does not have a gc!