Paulo Pinto pjmlp at progtools.org
Sun Feb 12 00:41:23 PST 2012

Am 11.02.2012 15:46, schrieb Nick Sabalausky:
> "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.

The reason being that if you remove the GC, then you end up with some 
kind of C, C++, Pascal or Ada flavour, because there is only so much you
can do without a GC.

So in the end you just get an already existing language, but with 
different syntax.

So it is not worth the effort designing such languages.

More to the point, research has proven that system programming languages 
with GC is possible, they have yet not become mainstream because for a 
systems programming language to become mainstream it has to be choosen 
from a major OS company.

One of the things I like in D is that it really feels like Sing#, the C#
Singularity version but open source.


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list