Could D have fit Microsoft's needs?

[Laeeth Isharc]

On Sunday, 21 July 2019 at 00:22:11 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 7/18/2019 5:12 PM, Mike Franklin wrote:
>> ... and D could complete better with Rust if it had 
>> @safe-by-default and statically-check ownership/borrowing 
>> mechanism as Walter recently proposed.
>
> D has some huge advantages over Rust.
>
> For example, D has a familiar syntax and jargon. For another, 
> you'll be able to move to memory safety incrementally with D, 
> you won't have to rewrite your app from the start. D's 
> metaprogramming abilities far exceed Rust's. Etc.

What's missing is a tool to port C to D.  Atila didn't like the 
idea - 'thats what a C compiler is for' but I think it would make 
a difference.  Rust had a multimillion dollar DoD grant to 
support their tool that does this, but it's not something out of 
reach of being a community project I think.  One could even use 
their tool that outputs the libclang tool as CBOR.  It's just at 
the other end - turning that into a D AST was beyond what I could 
manage in the time available.