Could D have fit Microsoft's needs?

[vladislavp]

On Thursday, 18 July 2019 at 23:00:03 UTC, bauss wrote:
> Microsoft has published article about needing a safer system 
> programming language.
>
> https://msrc-blog.microsoft.com/2019/07/18/we-need-a-safer-systems-programming-language/
>
> Could D (Most likely as betterC) have fit into that domain OR 
> is it not yet safe?

I am new to D-Lang community.
I am impressed at the level of openness that the moderators have 
in this forum, to be honest.

The number of negativism in some posts is very high.
To the point where it is actually hard to understand the 
technical details behind
particular grievances.

Rust has theoretical foundations behind its type system and 
compile-time checking of the pointer ownership.  Some great 
innovation and pragmatic, focused implementation team(s).

But D has a whole language operating on meta-types, plus a number 
of very mature backends integrating into C/C++ ecosystems.

So D's metaprogramming capabilities can, technically,  allow it 
to become
Rust, Scala, Agda, Idris, Coq and Z3.

Sure D's bolt package is a 'nascent' step (more like a utility) 
of a type algebras.

And, yes, languages with non-trivial type algebras take very  
long to build (and require advanced understanding of dependent 
types, relation program derivation and so on)

But, there is really nothing else like D out there.

As for Microsoft, It would be interesting to hear how they view  
D's BetterC and its, hopefully soon, upcoming DIP 1000
for their Driver Verification (SLAM)
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/project/slam/
And building devices drivers in BetterC (since it specifically 
allows to use C's or C++ runtime).