World needs a safe language

[Paulo Pinto]

On Saturday, 10 April 2021 at 23:25:40 UTC, Dylan Graham wrote:
> On Saturday, 10 April 2021 at 20:04:03 UTC, Independent wrote:
>> Sorry I dont hate, instead I have lot of respect for the 
>> community. I was just sharing my thoughts. I wish D gets more 
>> success in the future. What I felt is that D needs a plan, 
>> roadmoap, goal and shout it outside to the world and the 
>> community can help in small pieces. It needs a small makeover.
>
> I'm kind of torn on this.
>
> I'm not sure that anyone really has a long term vision of what 
> D will be. It's becoming quite a different language from even 
> 10 years ago. It is quite affirming to hear someone say "this 
> is what X will be in 5 years".
>
> At the same time, D's evolution does feel a bit more organic, 
> as contributors commit things they feel is beneficial for the 
> language in a decentralised manner.

Here are some ideas,

Meadow Platform, a µRTOS and full .NET Standard compatible 
runtime.

https://www.wildernesslabs.co/developers

Had it been in D, there would be no need for the µRTOS, 
everything would be in D.

microEJ, a µRTOS and Java based runtime.

https://www.microej.com/

Also a nice candidate for D.

Unity, now the must go engine for anyone that wants to do game 
dev, AR and VR without having to deal with C++ as much as 
possible.

Had it been in D, HPC# and Burst compiler would have been D with 
@nogc.

F-Secure decided Go is good enough for bare metal coding, so USB 
Armory with TamaGo unikernel was born, yet another use case where 
D would have shinned.

https://www.f-secure.com/en/consulting/foundry/usb-armory

Discussing if D would be better with or without GC is pointless, 
rather improving the already existing language, so that companies 
like the examples above can look at D and place it on their 
candidate list for final decision how to build their products.