Sean Kelly wrote:
== Quote from Georg Wrede (georg.wr...@iki.fi)'s article
Well, anyhow, reading a couple fo Scott Meyers books really kills the
last inch of even trying to start coping with C++. They really make you
see what a piece of manure the language is. Without even trying.
I have a lot of issues with C++, but I find C to be positively maddening.
If there were a version of D that didn't contain a GC and ran on SPARC
I'd jump for joy right about now.
Amen, brother!!!
Such a version of D could (would?) take a remarkable slice of embedded
programming, in no time at all!
Most people I know, who program single board systems, curse C, swear
(and don't use) C++, and could kill for something that gave them K&R 1.0
worth of a language, with the ease of D (or Pascal, but with the metal
feel of C).
Walter has said that D will never be less than 32 bit, but many of these
guys still program 16 or 8 bit CPUs. (And 8 and 16 bits won't go away
anytime soon, either. There are gadgets smaller than mobile phones, in
the future, too.)
Without GC, one might even dream it's possible to write D syntax, and
target smaller than the x86 processor.
Many of these guys are hardware gurus, and only superficially study
programming, or a specific programming language. They're smart, so the
programming is not an issue, but the less they have to think about /how/
to express themselves and avoid stupid bugs, the better the code, and
the more they have time to design the overall functionality and
usability of the gadget.
