On 2/13/12 11:46 AM, Zach the Mystic wrote:
On 2/13/12 11:54 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
I just find it difficult to imagine things that way. Tiny devices are
confined to small programs by definition, and at that magnitude the
field is quite leveled; for a 3K-lines program, C is just fine and many
of D's (and other languages') advantages are at best minor.
Andrei
From a practical standpoint, you are correct, and I won't argue.
But from an idealistic standpoint, D stands as one of the few languages
(the only language?) which really has a finger in every pie.
So we seek a compromise answer. How to manage D's current limited
manpower effectively while still holding true to a few ideals. Ideals do
matter, and in that sense they are, ironically, practical, because they
motivate people.
Agreed. There are two issues I see here in my opinion. First, putting
some of our manpower in a small subset of D for tiny embedded systems is
a misplaced investment because it would make a small impact at best.
Second, coming up with another D-derived brand is a bad marketing move.
We've been hurt for too long a time by D1/D2. With that in mind, if
working on D for small embedded systems is what you like, I encourage
you to go down that path and see what you discover.
Andrei
