Nick Sabalausky a at a.a
Sat Feb 11 06:46:39 PST 2012

"Paulo Pinto" <pjmlp at progtools.org> wrote in message 
news:jh5aip$1qma$1 at digitalmars.com...
> I don't see the point.
> C++ was the last systems programming language without GC getting market 
> share. I seriously doubt any new systems programming language without GC 
> will ever suceed.

You're looking at it backwards. The whole point is for places where you 
wouldn't want GC. Those people are currently limited to the rotting, 
antiquated C and...that's about it. Nobody said this "D-" would need to take 
over the world. It can still succeed in a niche, and that niche is the whole 
point here.

> Specially since systems programming in MacOS X and Windows world is

Nobody's talking about Mac and Windows here.

> So sum this up. If you need a languague without GC, C and C++ are quite 
> good,

That's laughable. C and C++ are convoluted anachronistic crap. The only 
reason anyone still uses them is because 99.99% of language designers feel 
the way you do, and as a reasult, C/C++ remain the *only* options for 
certain uses.

> have lots of tools and excellent compilers available.
> Do you need a very simple C like language, but with GC and a few 
> improvements, Go might be an option.

First of all, Issue 9 is shit. Secondly, we're talking systems/embedded 
here, and Issue 9 is nowhere remotely near the same planet. That's like 
suggesting Perl or PHP.

> Do you need a language with GC,

Not the scenario we're talking about.

> that is C++ done right and quite capable
> for systems programming, pick D.
> There is no need to D-.


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list