Jacob Carlborg doob at me.com
Sat Feb 11 04:40:12 PST 2012

On 2012-02-10 20:23, Zachary Lund wrote:
> On 02/10/2012 01:02 PM, Tim Krimm wrote:
>> We have C and C++
>> How about D- and D?
>> D- would be the have a similar use as today's C compilers.
>> ===========================
>> Why create this language?
>> ===========================
>> Well I would love to have a D compiler that supports microcontrollers.
>> The ones that have say 32 K of RAM and 64K of FLASH.
>> A language that is targeted for embedded and/or low resource
>> environments.
>> It would be nice to have a modern language for low resource environments.
>> A potential way to implement this language is to use the DMD frontend,
>> then flag the unsupported features of D,
>> Next create a backend, like "C front" that outputs C code instead of
>> assembler.
>> ===========================
>> What do I envision with D-,
>> D-- or Dm or what ever you want to call it.
>> ===========================
>> This language would basically be D without the garbage collection.
>> For example there would be structures but no classes.
>> There would be regular arrays but no dynamic arrays.
>> Code that is mostly equivalent to C, but you would still have structures
>> with functions and overloading support,
>> and other features like templates etc.
>> I think you get the idea.
>> What are your thoughts?
> I would love this as well. I *think* you wouldn't have to recreate the
> language, just recreate the runtime. You can currently use D and can
> completely avoid the use of the GC by just using static functions. From
> what I understand, dynamic arrays are also controlled and provided
> through the runtime. You can also export C symbols if you wanted to.

No need to restrict yourself yo static functions. Functions in structs 
are not virtual and doesn't require the GC.

/Jacob Carlborg

More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list