D-

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

On 2/13/12 11:46 AM, Zach the Mystic wrote:
> On 2/13/12 11:54 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> I just find it difficult to imagine things that way. Tiny devices are
>> confined to small programs by definition, and at that magnitude the
>> field is quite leveled; for a 3K-lines program, C is just fine and many
>> of D's (and other languages') advantages are at best minor.
>>
>> Andrei
>
>  From a practical standpoint, you are correct, and I won't argue.
>
> But from an idealistic standpoint, D stands as one of the few languages
> (the only language?) which really has a finger in every pie.
>
> So we seek a compromise answer. How to manage D's current limited
> manpower effectively while still holding true to a few ideals. Ideals do
> matter, and in that sense they are, ironically, practical, because they
> motivate people.

Agreed. There are two issues I see here in my opinion. First, putting 
some of our manpower in a small subset of D for tiny embedded systems is 
a misplaced investment because it would make a small impact at best. 
Second, coming up with another D-derived brand is a bad marketing move. 
We've been hurt for too long a time by D1/D2. With that in mind, if 
working on D for small embedded systems is what you like, I encourage 
you to go down that path and see what you discover.

Andrei