D's performance.

[Jowei Dei]

> Not sure what you mean by drawing a distinction between D and 
> low-level languages. If you translate a piece of C code into D 
> (it doesn't even require much translation since the syntax is 
> similar) and compile it, you'll get the performance of C. If D 
> code is slower than C, it's because you've chosen to write 
> slower code for convenience/safety reasons rather than 
> performance.

I want to use d to develop my own DSL, which requires the 
performance guarantee of the original language to avoid the 
performance loss of the upper DSL. In addition, I don't want to 
implement an extremely complex garbage collector by myself, so I 
want to find a language with automatic collection function. After 
comprehensive consideration, I still think that D is very 
suitable in this respect. It is not cumbersome, fast, and the 
basic library is relatively complete.