On Tuesday, 4 February 2014 at 11:57:25 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
On Tuesday, 4 February 2014 at 11:13:03 UTC, Don wrote:
On Tuesday, 4 February 2014 at 10:32:26 UTC, ed wrote:
Realistically D as a systems language isn't even at the
hobby stage.
We're using D as a systems language on a global commercial
scale. And no, we don't use malloc/free. We just don't use
Phobos.
Maybe I'm thinking too much embedded, which I admit isn't
fair on D and at this stage maybe not a realistic comparison.
Yeah, I dunno what "systems language" means really.
For me it means you can write an OS with it, even if some tiny
parts require the use of Assembly glue.
I know that's the *origin* of the term, but I don't think that's
the *meaning*.
I mean, that's a really obscure task. People almost never write a
new OS, and languages have claimed to be systems languages
without ever having done it.
AFAICT what it really means is "like C" in some vaguely-defined
sense.
