On 12 December 2011 09:33, Paulo Pinto <[email protected]> wrote: > Walter Bright Wrote: > > > On 12/11/2011 10:34 AM, Paulo Pinto wrote: > > > In my experience programming embedded systems in highly constrained > environments > > > usually means assembly or at most a C compiler using lots > > > of compiler specific extensions for the target environment. > > > > > > I fail to see how D without GC could be a better tool in such > enviroments. > > > > For a system with a tiny amount of memory, D probably is the wrong tool. > My > > suggestion would be: > > > > 0..64K assembler > > 64K..1M C > > 1M+ D > > > > The larger your program is, the more D starts to pull ahead. > > Exactly, and with 1M+ we are already getting into the processor's realm > which have C# and Java tolchains with AOT compilation and GC with real time > extensions available. So why have D without GC for such environments? >
I wrote a massive email, respond to that...
