On 2/13/12 1:17 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
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
Once again, you're correct. I have little to add to this, except to say
that when I first read the topic I was rather excited, and I read on
hoping to see a discussion of what exactly would be involved in
stripping out a chunk of D that it might produce extremely small
programs. I wonder if my desire to read these threads for educational
purposes is at odds with their other functions, such as internal debates
about where the language should be headed.
I don't know what to say about the D1/D2 debacle. It seems like D's
extraordinary dedication to "getting it right" has had some unfortunate
side effects. Perhaps it's possible to interpret D's past as a sort of
"nekyia" on D's way to a more glorious future:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nekyia
