twkrimm at yahoo.com
Fri Feb 10 18:33:24 PST 2012
On Saturday, 11 February 2012 at 01:46:26 UTC, Era Scarecrow
>>> What are your thoughts?
>> There is no way you get a D application into 64K. The language
>> is not powerful enough. Only C can achieve that.
> I'll need to agree. Porting D to a smaller memory space and
> with cramped features in all of this is not going to be good no
> matter how you look at it. I'm sure it's similar to comparing
> using perl in something with only 64k of memory, one must ask
> where you can put the interpreter, decoding and working with
> the source text, and many other things, not to mention even if
> you pulled it off, the speed penalty.
> With only 64k, you aren't going to need anything extremely
> complex or elaborate.
> You MIGHT get away with exporting D code to using C symbols,
> but you'll likely be stuck working with structs, no library
> support, no heap, no memory management, and fixed-sized arrays.
> I doubt you'd need templates, or any of the higher functions.
> All structures and types must be basic or known statically at
> compile time. Unlikely for lambdas to be used, and a score of
> other features.
> This is all just speculation, but I think you get the picture.
> If you make a subset of D, it would most likely be named
> Mini-D. But at that point you've got an enhanced C without
> going C++.
Also computer chips are becoming more powerful every day.
I think we will soon be needing better tools.
example: Microchip PIC32MX795F512L
32 bit MIPS architecture
512K flash, 128K RAM
priced less than $10
More information about the Digitalmars-d