On Saturday, 2 March 2013 at 18:48:37 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
On Saturday, 2 March 2013 at 17:26:52 UTC, js.mdnq wrote:
For the same reason that most embedded languages use C and not
C++. Obviously it is easier to implement a subset of something
than the full set(at the very least, less work). Most embedded
applications don't have the resources to deal with higher
level constructs(since these generally come at a real cost).
For example, a GC is generally an issue on small embedded
apps. The D core language spec would have to be GC agnostic(in
fact, I think the full spec should be).
As an embedded guy I dream of direct @safe opposite, somewhat
similar to @nogc proposal but even more restrictive, one that
could work with minimal run-time. I have tried to interest
someone in experiments with D at work but lack of compiler
verified subset that is embedded-ready was a big issue.
I believe a subset of D could prove interesting to C programmers
the same way the full D language looks interesting to C++
programmers. With the added benefit that one could fairly easily
learn the full language from the subset language.
