Could D be used by Jonathan Blow rather jai language?

[Ola Fosheim Grøstad]

On Friday, 20 November 2020 at 01:14:45 UTC, Bruce Carneal wrote:
> Consider the future variant that includes monadic type 
> variables and, pay-as-you-go, embeds the "static" compiler 
> within the app.  Will some people still pine for Python style 
> "typing" if the compile-time/run-time distinction is optional?
>
> I imagine there will still be some who would so, yes, call that 
> part of the "nearly".

The problem is more general. If you include low level 
capabilities across the board then you also throw out most solid 
type system advantages. In fact, in the case of D it even 
prevents a decent GC. Even to enable a decent GC you would need 
more constraints than D currently has.

The only way you can have high-level programming advantages is if 
you isolate low level programming capabilities and encapsulate 
that code with guarantees that uphold the high level type system 
invariants.