My choice to pick Go over D ( and Rust ), mostly non-technical

[Ola Fosheim Grøstad]

On Monday, 5 February 2018 at 11:25:15 UTC, psychoticRabbit wrote:
> C is for trusting the programmer, so that they can do anything.
>
> It's also for keeping things fast - *even if not portable*.

C++ is the same...

> Last but not least, C is for keeping things small, and simple.

Yes, it takes less discipline to keep executables small in C, 
thanks to the lack of powerful abstraction mechanisms... Although 
in theory there is no difference.

> C does all this really well, and has done so... for a very long 
> time.

I don't know how well it does it. When designing for assembly you 
tend to be annoyed by how inefficient C is in translating to 
machine language... But people generally don't do that anymore so 
I guess that perception is lost.

> I believe this is why its not so easy to create a 'better' C 
> (let alone convince people that there is a need for a better c)

I don't think many want a replacement for C, in the sense that 
the language is very limited.

It is possible to create a much better language for embedde 
programming than C, but the market is not growing, thanks to CPUs 
being much more powerful now, even for embedded.