D-

[Tim Krimm]

On Saturday, 11 February 2012 at 01:46:26 UTC, Era Scarecrow 
wrote:
>>> What are your thoughts?
>>
>> There is no way you get a D application into 64K. The language 
>> is not powerful enough. Only C can achieve that.
>
> I'll need to agree. Porting D to a smaller memory space and 
> with cramped features in all of this is not going to be good no 
> matter how you look at it. I'm sure it's similar to comparing 
> using perl in something with only 64k of memory, one must ask 
> where you can put the interpreter, decoding and working with 
> the source text, and many other things, not to mention even if 
> you pulled it off, the speed penalty.
>
> With only 64k, you aren't going to need anything extremely 
> complex or elaborate.
> You MIGHT get away with exporting D code to using C symbols, 
> but you'll likely be stuck working with structs, no library 
> support, no heap, no memory management, and fixed-sized arrays. 
> I doubt you'd need templates, or any of the higher functions. 
> All structures and types must be basic or known statically at 
> compile time. Unlikely for lambdas to be used, and a score of 
> other features.
>
> This is all just speculation, but I think you get the picture. 
> If you make a subset of D, it would most likely be named 
> Mini-D. But at that point you've got an enhanced C without 
> going C++.

Also computer chips are becoming more powerful every day.
I think we will soon be needing better tools.


example: Microchip PIC32MX795F512L
32 bit MIPS architecture
512K flash, 128K RAM
priced less than $10

http://www.microchip.com/wwwproducts/Devices.aspx?dDocName=en545660#2