Could D be used by Jonathan Blow rather jai language?

[Bruce Carneal]

On Friday, 20 November 2020 at 09:51:43 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad 
wrote:
> On Friday, 20 November 2020 at 01:14:45 UTC, Bruce Carneal 
> wrote:
>> Consider the future variant that includes monadic type 
>> variables and, pay-as-you-go, embeds the "static" compiler 
>> within the app.  Will some people still pine for Python style 
>> "typing" if the compile-time/run-time distinction is optional?
>>
>> I imagine there will still be some who would so, yes, call 
>> that part of the "nearly".
>
> The problem is more general. If you include low level 
> capabilities across the board then you also throw out most 
> solid type system advantages. In fact, in the case of D it even 
> prevents a decent GC. Even to enable a decent GC you would need 
> more constraints than D currently has.
>
> The only way you can have high-level programming advantages is 
> if you isolate low level programming capabilities and 
> encapsulate that code with guarantees that uphold the high 
> level type system invariants.

Constraints are key.  The question is when they are applied and 
by whom.  Does the language designer choose the constraints ahead 
of time or does the programmer opt-in/out of full capability at 
need?