Is D Dead?

[Paulo Pinto]

On Tuesday, 14 September 2021 at 09:37:38 UTC, Dukc wrote:
> On Tuesday, 14 September 2021 at 09:21:07 UTC, Paulo Pinto 
> wrote:
>>
>> A systems programming language is one that can be used to 
>> write the full stack OS in it, period.
>
> I guess there are as many definitions as there are programmers 
> for "systems programming language". But regardless of the 
> definition, I'm interested: can you write a Go program without 
> it's GC, and how much of the language is usable without it, if?
>

Why should I constrain myself, GC has a place in systems 
programming as proven by stuff being shipped in production, more 
so than what D has achieved thus far.

So apparently Go not fitting your definition of systems 
programming language doesn't hinder it having more success in the 
market on that regard.

>>
>> As for being able to drop the runtime to be considered a 
>> systems programming language, I guess that rules out Ada and 
>> C++ then.
>
> I'm pretty sure you can drop the extra parts of C++ runtime 
> with the linkers unused symbol stripper, if nothing else. 
> Granted, that only works if you don't use the parts of C++ 
> runtime you want to drop but it is still reasonable to use it 
> that way.

Indeed, by making use of language extensions and compiler 
specific implementations not defined by ISO C++.

And I am not defending arguing Go only.

PTC Java, Aicas Java, microEJ, Meadow .NET are also part of what 
I would consider.

Including D, with a minimal runtime instead of stuff like 
DasBetterC.