Plan for D

[Paulo Pinto]

On Friday, 21 May 2021 at 09:02:32 UTC, IGotD- wrote:
> On Friday, 21 May 2021 at 08:43:44 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
>>
>> Do like those projects, the powers at the steering wheel 
>> should stick with the original design and push it no matter 
>> what, instead of switching direction every couple of years and 
>> never finishing it.
>
> The reason we want to move away from tracing GC is because of 
> this, to quote Araq in this thread.
>
> https://forum.dlang.org/post/fttikqwuygkdmpbfocdh@forum.dlang.org
>
> *But Nim actually bets on RC because it's much more amenable to 
> manual optimizations and because it works well with custom 
> memory management, making it a good fit for "systems 
> programming".*
>
> If D wants be a viable option in embedded and systems 
> programming, it has to move away from the tracing GC it has 
> today. This is one of the big reasons D doesn't gain 
> popularity. For high level scripting languages, there are 
> plenty of alternatives.

Why bother with D given the competition?

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

https://www.astrobe.com/

https://www.ptc.com/en/products/developer-tools/perc

https://www.aicas.com/wp/products-services/jamaicavm/

https://tinygo.org/

http://www.ulisp.com/

https://makecode.microbit.org/

https://www.wildernesslabs.co/

Just reboot memory managment yet again, better make it sooner 
than Go gets its first generics release by the end of the year, 
though.