D easily overlooked?

[Ola Fosheim Grøstad via Digitalmars-d]

On Monday, 24 July 2017 at 11:28:51 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
> I had assumed D was designed to be a GC language from the 
> outset.

The D memory model is still in flux and always allowed C-like 
memory management. Whereas both Go and Java sacrificed fast C 
interfacing from the early days to get proper GC support, so 
there is a qualitative difference in the assumptions made in the 
language designs.

> It seems that the Go team are using backward compatibility as a 
> rod for their own backs just as Java/JDK folk did.

Yes, maybe. Although I guess one strategy would be to allow 
library codebases to move along up until say Go 1.12 and get wide 
scale feature adoption in Go libraries that are very close to the 
2.0 semantics, thus making porting to 2.0 more attractive to 
library devs. But some platforms, like App Engine is currently 
stuck at Go 1.6 so not sure how Google as a whole thinks about 
this.

Interestingly Dart is now moving towards static typing, as many 
of the current user Google users expect Java-like static 
predictability. So, one thing is what the language designers 
want, but maybe Google's own usage will take Go in another 
direction as well.