On 2012-02-11 15:36, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"Era Scarecrow"<rtcv...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:jzavmzbmjoyujhqyf...@dfeed.kimsufi.thecybershadow.net...
What are your thoughts?
There is no way you get a D application into 64K. The language is not
powerful enough. Only C can achieve that.
I'll need to agree. Porting D to a smaller memory space and with cramped
features in all of this is not going to be good no matter how you look at
it. I'm sure it's similar to comparing using perl in something with only
64k of memory, one must ask where you can put the interpreter, decoding
and working with the source text, and many other things, not to mention
even if you pulled it off, the speed penalty.
With only 64k, you aren't going to need anything extremely complex or
elaborate.
You MIGHT get away with exporting D code to using C symbols, but you'll
likely be stuck working with structs, no library support, no heap, no
memory management, and fixed-sized arrays. I doubt you'd need templates,
or any of the higher functions. All structures and types must be basic or
known statically at compile time. Unlikely for lambdas to be used, and a
score of other features.
This is all just speculation, but I think you get the picture. If you make
a subset of D, it would most likely be named Mini-D. But at that point
you've got an enhanced C without going C++.
That would *still* be a very notable improvement over C. Hell, if you ask
me, a proper module system alone is one of the killer features of D over C.
Header files? Seriously? Fuck that shit. What the hell is this, 1970? And
then there's other things that are *at the very least* icing on the cake:
Faster compilation, slicing, better safety, metaprogramming (esp CTFE) that
whups C's ass and makes it much less less tempting to do things at runtime
that don't need to be done at runtime. That's all just off the top of my
head.
I think slicing is quite difficult without a GC. Not the actual slicing
but freeing the memory.
--
/Jacob Carlborg
