Microsoft working on new systems language

[QAston]

On Wednesday, 8 January 2014 at 22:55:24 UTC, bioinfornatics 
wrote:
>
> They are any conclusion about this ?
> they are 10 page and most part talk about D gc…

It is concluded that C(and optionally C++ - depending on the 
speaker) is inherently faster than anything else because C(++) is 
a "portable assembly language" and therefore it encourages 
writing fast software.

For example, most of real C(++) programmers preallocate large 
blocks of memory space for future usage instead of allocating 
space for single variables like most of programmers using the 
discussed language. Cache locality gives a huge speed gains to 
the former group, while the latter group gets diabetes because of 
syntactic sugar. It's also worth noting that C(++) programmers 
are using memory more efficiently because they only allocate and 
deallocate memory only when needed - memory is reclaimed by OS as 
fast as possible. This can't be achieved by garbage collection 
which frees memory in batches.

C(++) is prefered over assembly because it's just as fast or even 
faster than what would you write manually, yet it allows you to 
focus on algorithms and data structures instead of low level 
details of the machine like cache locality and memory layout. 
Yet, you still retain full control - by using inline asm you can 
regain some cycles wasted on adhering to calling conventions, 
etc. C(++) macro language is superior to what NASM, FASM and 
others have to offer - it's much simpler to use than those and it 
serves as a prefered way of achieving robust compile time 
polymorphism.

C(++) is designed to be simple and fast language. It can be 
adopted easily in various architectures because of many undefined 
behaviors (which leave wiggle-room for implementers) and lack of 
runtime library - you can just use OS calls!

There's no way this language can beat C(++), don't even try to 
fight with years of tradition. Simply join the cult!