On 7/6/24 16:56, aberba wrote:
>  From another angle, would you choose "less freedom but more security" or "more freedom but less security"? You can't have both.

Arguably, security is a form of freedom.

On Monday, 8 July 2024 at 15:27:49 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
> On 7/6/24 16:56, aberba wrote:
>>  From another angle, would you choose "less freedom but more security" or "more freedom but less security"? You can't have both.
>
> Arguably, security is a form of freedom.

Maybe in some political theories, but on a computer? No

Binary and basically perfect data storage changes the fuzziness/analog required for those political theories.

Either the function has a throw in the code path or it doesnt; either a function throws on nan or treats it as a 0; for each type of error its either the compiler stops or it prints a warning people ignore.

When "safety is nessery for freedom" argument is made politically, at least they are referring to say freedom of movement is limited by the chance of muggers or something and theres at least tradeoffs to consider for humans following instructions poorly and large scale physical systems being inherently probabilistic.

On Monday, 8 July 2024 at 15:27:49 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
> On 7/6/24 16:56, aberba wrote:
>>  From another angle, would you choose "less freedom but more security" or "more freedom but less security"? You can't have both.
>
> Arguably, security is a form of freedom.

"You'll own and control nothing, but you'll be happy"

On 7/8/24 23:56, aberba wrote:
> On Monday, 8 July 2024 at 15:27:49 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
>> On 7/6/24 16:56, aberba wrote:
>>>  From another angle, would you choose "less freedom but more security" or "more freedom but less security"? You can't have both.
>>
>> Arguably, security is a form of freedom.
> 
> "You'll own and control nothing, but you'll be happy"

That has nothing to do with what I said.

On 7/8/24 18:16, monkyyy wrote:
> On Monday, 8 July 2024 at 15:27:49 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
>> On 7/6/24 16:56, aberba wrote:
>>>  From another angle, would you choose "less freedom but more security" or "more freedom but less security"? You can't have both.
>>
>> Arguably, security is a form of freedom.
> 
> Maybe in some political theories, but on a computer? No
> ...

The context here is programming a computer. I don't know why you jump to politics. It's also against the forum guidelines.

The simple fact is that if you program in a language without footguns, you are free to not worry about shooting your own foot. (Assuming you like having feet.)

On 7/6/2024 9:10 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> Typing @safe: is also incorrect. You will cause your templates to fail to compile.

??

On 7/9/24 01:21, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 7/6/2024 9:10 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>> Typing @safe: is also incorrect. You will cause your templates to fail to compile.
> 
> ??
> 

Templates are inferred by default:

```d
auto call(alias a)(){ a(); }

@safe void foo(){}
@system void bar(){}

@safe void fun(){ call!fun(); }
@system void gun(){ call!bar(); }
```

If you annotate `call` with `@safe`, some of those calls will no longer work. It removes functionality even though it was already compatible with `@safe` code.

`@safe:` will put `@safe` on all your function templates, which will make them not work in `@system` contexts even if they worked before.

The issue is that it applies the attribute, when what is needed is a way to change the default attribute.