On Friday, 15 April 2016 at 02:29:12 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 4/14/2016 5:28 PM, Observer wrote:
Nobody should think that this area can be suitably addressed
with just a few language tweaks. It's
really a thesis-level topic.
My worry would be coming up with a language feature,
implementing it, and then discovering it is useless.
I don't want to be entirely discouraging about this. Much has
happened in the programming world over decades of thinking and
development, and real-time work is certainly an interesting
problem, especially as we evolve computing toward IoT. But it
will take sustained effort. Someone like Nordlöw, who has a
personal stake in the outcome, will have to pick up the ball
and run with it. I think the right approach would be the D
equivalent of a strong technical proposal such as is done in
the N-series papers in the C and C++ language-standards
evolution process. That is, papers that include motivation,
background, scope, proposed-design, and impact sections. I
don't know whether DIPs as they are presently practiced are
up to grade for this; the few that I've scanned seem light on
sufficient background as compared to what I believe would be
necessary for a topic as complex as real-time work.
