Thoughts about D

[Paulo Pinto]

On Tuesday, 28 November 2017 at 06:24:38 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky 
wrote:
> On Tuesday, 28 November 2017 at 06:12:19 UTC, Walter Bright 
> wrote:
>> On 11/27/2017 9:11 PM, rikki cattermole wrote:
>>> On 28/11/2017 5:03 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
>>>> On 11/27/2017 6:55 PM, John wrote:
>>>>> Should add optlink to that list, would love to see it 
>>>>> converted to D!
>>>>
>>> We have discussed this on Discord a little bit lately.
>>> What we are hoping for is a D dmc+libc updated to use dmd-be. 
>>> Potentially allowing us to use LLVM's linker but with dmc's 
>>> libc as well. Giving us out of the box experience for 64bit.
>>> 
>>> It would be nice, but well, your site would need a lot of 
>>> changes to go in this direction.
>>
>> Yes, I've thought about making dmc++ 64 bit, but there'd be a 
>> fair amount of work (mostly upgrading SNN to 64 bits.)
>
> We could also convert that libc to D ;)
> Seriously betterC mode would make that way easier and more fun, 
> is it on GitHub?
>
> Actually Herb Sutter shared once that Microsoft used C++ (as in 
> templates C++) to reimplement a significant chunk of its libc 
> with great success. Less code, less ifdef hell and macro abuse 
> I think were presented as advantages.

Yes, the new MSVCRT.dll, is implemented in C++.

https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/vcblog/2014/06/10/the-great-c-runtime-crt-refactoring/

After Midori and Longhorn's failure, there has been a migration 
effort to slowly get rid of C and focus on C++ for lower level 
stuff and .NET Native for everything else, at least on what 
concerns kernel, desktop and UWP.