On 20.12.2013 22:05, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2013-12-20 08:03, Paulo Pinto wrote:
Even though I rather use D than Go, every time I read that, I am tempted
to prove people wrong. If I had the time for it, that is.
Go offers the same mechanisms for systems programming as Oberon does. If
ETHZ was able to create Native Oberon, AOS and EthOS with Oberon, why
cannot one do an OS with Go?
When developing an OS, for somethings these languages are not enough,
including C, Go and D. You need to use assembly. D has the advantage of
supporting inline assembly.
Until all D compilers provide the same support for inline assembly, it
is better we don't use that as language feature.
Currently I rather write assembly with an external assembler than using
a separate syntax per D compiler.
However you do touch a nice point, even ANSI/ISO C needs to rely on
external assemblers to be useful at systems level. This is something
developers forget when they equate language == what my compiler supports.
--
Paulo
