Incorporating D

[eles]

On Monday, 28 January 2013 at 12:04:42 UTC, Szymon wrote:
> On Saturday, 26 January 2013 at 21:30:22 UTC, mist wrote:
>> On Saturday, 26 January 2013 at 20:54:30 UTC, FG wrote:
>>> On 2013-01-26 20:55, SomeDude wrote:
> We actually are video game company ;) That is why D seems like 
> perfect choice for future language. Native code + superb 
> programmer productivity + fast compile times. If D was bit more 
> mature decision would be dead simple.

Well, let's hope it becomes mature enough. My impression is that 
it needs to clean up itself a bit, to remove several ambiguities 
(that @property discussion...) that lasted far too long to bring 
any good, and to work heavily on tools: the compiler.

Otherwise, I think it is OK to start with it. Custom 
runtimes/libraries could provide GC-free implementation where 
needed (BSPs, games).

Not wanting to sadden anyone, but the main effort in tools should 
be, my feeling, directed at gdc/gcc. It will help a lot to having 
D a good-quality "gcc-standard" language.

Then, Eclipse/DDT with debugging and what else it is missing.

Then... happy coding.