A Case for Oxidation: A potential missed opportunity for D

[Radu]

On Friday, 29 June 2018 at 09:25:08 UTC, Mike Franklin wrote:
> Please allow me to bring your attention to an interesting 
> presentation about  choosing a modern programming language for 
> writing operating systems:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDFSrVhnZKo
>
> It's a good talk and probably worth your time if you're 
> interested in bare-metal systems programming.  The presenter 
> mentions D briefly in the beginning when he discussed how he 
> made his choice of programming language.
>
> He shows the following (probably inaccurate) matrix.
>
> Lang    | Mem Safety | Min Runtime | Strong Type Syst. | 
> Performance
> C       |            | x           |                   | x
> C++     |            | x           |                   | x
> C#      | x          |             | x                 |
> D       | x          |             | x                 | x
> Go      | x          |             | x                 | x
> Rust    | x          | x           | x                 | x
> Java    | x          |             | x                 | x
> Haskell | x          |             | x                 |
> Cycle   | x          | x           | x                 | x
>
> It appears the deal-breaker for D was the lack of "minimal 
> runtime".  Of course D has -betterC and, with 2.079, a way to 
> use some features of D without the runtime, but he also goes on 
> to discuss the importance of memory safety in his application 
> of the language.
>
> I hope we'll see something competitive with DIP25, DIP1000, and 
> the `scope` storage class, namely *memory safety without a 
> runtime*.
>
> I'm currently waiting for 2.081 to reach LDC and GDC, and then 
> I have a few ideas I'd like to begin working on myself, but I 
> never have a shortage of ideas, just a shortage of time and 
> energy.
>
> Enjoy!
>
> Mike

While not necessarily targeting bare metal, I'm very interested 
in a working version of @safe dlang. I believe that dlang with 
betterC, @safe, C/C++ inter-op and dip1000 will be huge for 
replacing C/C++.

Not long ago I tried to create a library in dlang that is coded 
betterC and @safe. The idea is to have the library core in dlang 
and automatically generated C and C++ wrappers at compile time 
for allowing the library to be used from those languages or 
others capable to link to the C API.

Unfortunately bugs in betterC and dip1000 stopped progress (most 
of where fixed already). So waiting for LDC to catch up and give 
it a try again. Also looking fwd to be able to use C++ classes in 
betterC.

I think if my library, or others, can make it, we could have a 
strong showcase on why dlang is better on so many levels.

The key is focusing on fixing betterC and @safe (dip1000) and 
keep quality standards high.
I think you did a great job already in fixing many of the issues, 
so thanks!