There is a comparison chart of different functions of D vs other languages at this site:
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/comparison.html
This "comparison" appears to be an advocacy piece by the D developers, and thus may be biased.
The comparison leaves out three conspicuous factors that I would want to see:
* Comparison with CCured <http://manju.cs.berkeley.edu/ccured/> (a safer C variant) * Comparison with Cyclone <http://www.research.att.com/projects/cyclone/> (another safer C variant) * Whether or not D is statically type safe. Here's a hint: o D: no (inferred from the fact that it includes inline assembler and "Direct access to C") o C: no o C++: no o C#: yes (not sure how well validated that is) o Java: yes (though some dispute it) o CCured: I think so, but I'm not sure o Cyclone: claims to be, but I don't know how well validated that is
Static type safety is the gold standard of "secure" programming languages. Any language that asks you to pay the price of porting to a new language and yet does not offer static type safety is IMHO worthless junk. So based on D's own marketing claims, I don't think it is even worth a second look. Instead, consider Java, C#, Cyclone, and CCured.
Disclaimer: I have no interest in any of these products. My product is a safer C compiler (StackGuard) that also does not offer type safety, but also does not ask you to do any porting: it just compiles standard C/C++ programs and adds some safety checks, i.e. just a compiler enhancement, not a new language.
Crispin
-- Crispin Cowan, Ph.D. http://immunix.com/~crispin/ CTO, Immunix http://immunix.com Immunix 7.3 http://www.immunix.com/shop/
