A Case for Oxidation: A potential missed opportunity for D
Jonathan Marler
johnnymarler at gmail.com
Fri Jun 29 19:42:40 UTC 2018
On Friday, 29 June 2018 at 09:25:08 UTC, Mike Franklin wrote:
> Please allow me to bring your attention to an interesting
> presentation about choosing a modern programming language for
> writing operating systems:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDFSrVhnZKo
>
> It's a good talk and probably worth your time if you're
> interested in bare-metal systems programming. The presenter
> mentions D briefly in the beginning when he discussed how he
> made his choice of programming language.
>
> He shows the following (probably inaccurate) matrix.
>
> Lang | Mem Safety | Min Runtime | Strong Type Syst. |
> Performance
> C | | x | | x
> C++ | | x | | x
> C# | x | | x |
> D | x | | x | x
> Go | x | | x | x
> Rust | x | x | x | x
> Java | x | | x | x
> Haskell | x | | x |
> Cycle | x | x | x | x
>
> It appears the deal-breaker for D was the lack of "minimal
> runtime". Of course D has -betterC and, with 2.079, a way to
> use some features of D without the runtime, but he also goes on
> to discuss the importance of memory safety in his application
> of the language.
>
> I hope we'll see something competitive with DIP25, DIP1000, and
> the `scope` storage class, namely *memory safety without a
> runtime*.
>
> I'm currently waiting for 2.081 to reach LDC and GDC, and then
> I have a few ideas I'd like to begin working on myself, but I
> never have a shortage of ideas, just a shortage of time and
> energy.
>
> Enjoy!
>
> Mike
This just isn't true. I've written a fair amount of a linux
distro in D without druntime/phobos or even the standard C
library.
https://github.com/marler8997/maros
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list