I'm not sure it's worthwhile to debate whether Rust or D is better. On @live, I'm not sure Walter is going in the right direction, but I think some of your arg

I'm not sure it's worthwhile to debate whether Rust or D is better. On @live, I'm not sure Walter is going in the right direction, but I think some of your arguments aren't the strongest. I have no issue with the incremental use of @live. People who use D know the difference between @system/@trusted/@safe and @live (esp. when @live is actually shipped and there is adequate documentation). The relevant question @live supporters could make is if @system/@trusted with @live is safer than without it. I think your point about D not having a memory model might be fairer, I'm not really in the position to judge it. Your final point is a bit weaker. Walter could easily argue that the idea is to move towards incorporating these features from Rust. Of course Rust is going to be further ahead on this. @live is also not thoroughly documented and there's a lot left to be determined. I think on @live I've been most convinced by skeptics that something like a new type qualifier or storage class is better. This storage class would basically enforce the equivalent of Rust's borrow checker (as in @live) and only allow one mutable or unlimited const references but not both. Users can also apply it incrementally, but is a bit more significant of a change than @live.