[OT] compiler optimisations

[via Digitalmars-d]

On Friday, 24 April 2015 at 20:50:17 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
> along with a Makefile, and my coauthors and I are using D. None 
> of the things you claim as design flaws are a problem for us.

Sounds like your usage fall into the category "compiled scripting 
language", but there you have many alternatives. So, you may use 
D for such, but I'd question if that is a rational direction.

For system programming a solid unmanaged memory model, strong 
typing, verification and near optimal performance matters. The 
requirements are much more demanding.

> As always, when it comes to programming languages, it really 
> depends on what you're trying to do. Not that long ago someone 
> around here was claiming Python is a niche language like 
> Haskell.

Which is wrong.

Python and Haskell are opposites. Python is a versatile general 
dynamic imperative _scripting_ language, suitable for connecting 
components top-down. Haskell is a statically typed functional 
programming language where you design bottom-up. Haskell has a 
small following (but big within FP). Python has a wide following, 
extensively documented, to the level where it is difficult to 
find a question unanswered when using Google.

>On Reddit, garbage collection is often called a design
> flaw. YMMV applies more to programming languages than about 
> anything else.

C++ would have been dead if the memory model was based on a Boehm 
GC. Many people have tried and left D due to compiler quality and 
GC. If those two issues had been given the highest priority (over 
new features) D would have taken a larger market share a long 
time ago.

(And no Tango/Phobos was not a big deal, just a minor annoyance.)