Is D Dead?

[Dukc]

On Tuesday, 14 September 2021 at 11:36:30 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
>
> 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.

And I didn't say "GC does not belong to systems programming". I 
asked whether Go can do without GC if someone wants to manage 
memory 100% manually anyway?


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

Not pushing my definition of systems programming to the 
dictionary. In hindsight it was stupid for me to even bring it 
up, since I don't know it's formal definition if there even is 
one.


>
> 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.

Hmm, DasBetterC and C have an underlying runtime too. I think 
you're saying that such a minimal runtime C has is an outdated 
approach, that a high-language should have a heavier runtime than 
that even when doing systems programming? And the real-low level 
stuff where you just can't use the GC but could use 
C++/Rust/DasBetterC (like some device drivers and the 
implementation of GC) are so few that it's just better to use C 
or assembly there? That it's not worthwhile for higher-level 
languages to target that niche?

I'm actually fairly neutral on that argument when talking about 
languages in general. I don't know about bare-metal programming 
enough to be sure. But D is pretty much committed to support the 
said niche, so I don't think reversing that decision is a good 
idea even if the niche isn't that important in general.