D as A Better C?

[Steven Schveighoffer]

On Tue, 11 Feb 2014 15:47:12 -0500, Peter Alexander  
<peter.alexander.au at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> I do program on embedded systems.
>
> I'll elaborate more on why I think this is a bad idea.
>
> First, we are struggling immensely as it is to get D2 into a complete  
> state. Many parts of the language are still poorly defined and even more  
> poorly implemented. The standard library is still lacking in critical  
> areas and there are still thousands of non-trivial bugs in the database.  
> The language itself is still evolving rapidly. Speaking optimistically,  
> I think we are still a few years away from resolving the existing  
> language issues, based on the current pace of things.

But the feature would be very simple to implement. You just avoid  
outputting any runtime type info, and avoid any compiler hooks into the  
runtime.

There is no requirement to do anything else. The language is finished. C's  
standard library becomes the standard library.

> We're heading in the right direction now and even accelerating, but I  
> think it would be incredibly unwise to embark on a new side-project,  
> which would just consume dev time, pulling effort away from D2  
> development. D1 was discontinued to spend more time on D2, not to start  
> new projects of debatable benefit.
>
> Please let's finish this language before we start on another.

I think you overestimate the size of this project.

-Steve