On Thursday, 18 May 2017 at 05:07:38 UTC, Patrick Schluter wrote:
On Thursday, 18 May 2017 at 00:58:31 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
On 5/17/17 8:27 PM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
[...]
What will cause a shift is a continuous business loss.
If business A and B are competing in the same space, and
business A has a larger market share, but experiences a
customer data breach. Business B consumes many of A's
customers, takes over the market, and it turns out that the
reason B wasn't affected was that they used a memory-safe
language.
The business cases like this will continue to pile up until it
will be considered ignorant to use a non-memory safe language.
It will be even more obvious when companies like B are much
smaller and less funded than companies like A, but can still
overtake them because of the advantage.
At least, this is the only way I can see C ever "dying". And
of course by dying, I mean that it just won't be selected for
large startup projects. It will always live on in low level
libraries, and large existing projects (e.g. Linux).
I wonder how much something like D in betterC mode can take
over some of these tasks?
If you get it to compile for and run the code on an AVR, Cortex
R0 or other 16 bit µC, then it would have a chance to replace
C. As it stands, C is the only general "high-level" language
that can be used for some classes of cpu's.
D requires afaict at least a 32 bit system with virtual memory,
which is already a steep requirement for embedded stuff.
C will remain relevant in everything below that.
https://www.mikroe.com/products/#compilers-software
One of the few companies that thinks there is more to AVR, Cortex
R0 or other 16 bit µC than just C.
On this specific case they also sell Basic and Pascal (TP
compatible) compilers.
There are other companies selling alternatives to C and still in
business, one just has to look beyond FOSS.
