D is crap

Paulo Pinto via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d at puremagic.com
Mon Jul 11 07:45:56 PDT 2016


On Monday, 11 July 2016 at 14:02:09 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad 
wrote:
> On Monday, 11 July 2016 at 13:24:14 UTC, Chris wrote:
>> I bet you that if D hadn't had GC when it first came out, 
>> people would've mentioned manual memory management as a reason 
>> not to use GC. I never claimed that D was _propelled_ by GC, 
>> but that it was a feature that most users would expect. Not 
>> having it would probably have done more harm than having it.
>
> Actually, I am certain that GC is a feature that _nobody_ would 
> expect from a system level language, outside the Go-crowd.
>

I am no longer dabbling in D, but could not resist:

- UK Royal Navy with Algol 68 RS

- Xerox PARC with Mesa/Cedar

- DEC/Olivetti/Compaq with Modula-3

- ETHZ with Oberon, Oberon-2, Active Oberon, Component Pascal

- Microsoft with Spec#, System C# and the upcoming .NET Native C# 
7.0+ features
  (http://joeduffyblog.com/2015/12/19/safe-native-code/, 
https://www.infoq.com/news/2016/06/systems-programming-qcon)

- Astrobe with Oberon for micro-controlers (ARM Cortex-M4, 
Cortex-M3 and
Xilinx FPGA Systems)

- PTC Perc Ultra with Java

- IS2T with their MicroEJ OS Java/C platform


The biggest problem with D isn't the GC, is lack of focus to make 
it stand out versus .NET Native, Swift, Rust, Ada, SPARK, Java, 
C++17.





More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list