Opportunity: Software Execution Time Determinism

[Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d]

On 4/14/2016 8:24 PM, Observer wrote:
> On Friday, 15 April 2016 at 02:29:12 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>> On 4/14/2016 5:28 PM, Observer wrote:
>>> Nobody should think that this area can be suitably addressed with just a few
>>> language tweaks.  It's
>>> really a thesis-level topic.
>>
>> My worry would be coming up with a language feature, implementing it, and then
>> discovering it is useless.
>
> I don't want to be entirely discouraging about this.  Much has
> happened in the programming world over decades of thinking and
> development, and real-time work is certainly an interesting
> problem, especially as we evolve computing toward IoT.  But it
> will take sustained effort.  Someone like Nordlöw, who has a
> personal stake in the outcome, will have to pick up the ball
> and run with it.  I think the right approach would be the D
> equivalent of a strong technical proposal such as is done in
> the N-series papers in the C and C++ language-standards
> evolution process.  That is, papers that include motivation,
> background, scope, proposed-design, and impact sections.  I
> don't know whether DIPs as they are presently practiced are
> up to grade for this; the few that I've scanned seem light on
> sufficient background as compared to what I believe would be
> necessary for a topic as complex as real-time work.

Yeah, I'd like to see a proposal from Per who actually works in the field.