D-

[Piotr Szturmaj]

Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2012-02-10 20:23, Zachary Lund wrote:
>> On 02/10/2012 01:02 PM, Tim Krimm wrote:
>>> 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.

Virtual functions don't require the GC either.