"Paulo Pinto" <pj...@progtools.org> wrote in message news:jh5aip$1qma$1...@digitalmars.com... > > I don't see the point. > > C++ was the last systems programming language without GC getting market > share. I seriously doubt any new systems programming language without GC > will ever suceed. >
You're looking at it backwards. The whole point is for places where you wouldn't want GC. Those people are currently limited to the rotting, antiquated C and...that's about it. Nobody said this "D-" would need to take over the world. It can still succeed in a niche, and that niche is the whole point here. > Specially since systems programming in MacOS X and Windows world is Nobody's talking about Mac and Windows here. > So sum this up. If you need a languague without GC, C and C++ are quite > good, That's laughable. C and C++ are convoluted anachronistic crap. The only reason anyone still uses them is because 99.99% of language designers feel the way you do, and as a reasult, C/C++ remain the *only* options for certain uses. > have lots of tools and excellent compilers available. > > Do you need a very simple C like language, but with GC and a few > improvements, Go might be an option. > First of all, Issue 9 is shit. Secondly, we're talking systems/embedded here, and Issue 9 is nowhere remotely near the same planet. That's like suggesting Perl or PHP. > Do you need a language with GC, Not the scenario we're talking about. > that is C++ done right and quite capable > for systems programming, pick D. > > There is no need to D-. > Poppycock.
