On Thursday, 18 July 2019 at 23:00:03 UTC, bauss wrote:
> Microsoft has published article about needing a safer system programming language.
>
> https://msrc-blog.microsoft.com/2019/07/18/we-need-a-safer-systems-programming-language/
>
> Could D (Most likely as betterC) have fit into that domain OR is it not yet safe?

It's a real possibility that Microsoft may chose dlang some day.But there are also other possibilities.Perhaps one day a more advanced and secure language will be invented as the rapid development of computers.Dlang does have some unique advantages-- It has redesigned some core C++ features, while also sharing characteristics of other languages, notably Java, Python, Ruby, C#, and Eiffel. The language as a whole is not memory-safe, but does include optional attributes designed to check memory safety.

On Wednesday, 24 July 2019 at 07:38:44 UTC, CaitlinSmith wrote:
> On Thursday, 18 July 2019 at 23:00:03 UTC, bauss wrote:
>> [...]
>
> It's a real possibility that Microsoft may chose dlang some day.But there are also other possibilities.Perhaps one day a more advanced and secure language will be invented as the rapid development of computers.Dlang does have some unique advantages-- It has redesigned some core C++ features, while also sharing characteristics of other languages, notably Java, Python, Ruby, C#, and Eiffel. The language as a whole is not memory-safe, but does include optional attributes designed to check memory safety.

They have .NET Native with the improvements taken from Midori introduced in C# 7.x/8 as complement to Rust and C++.

24.07.2019 4:16, Domain пишет:
> On Thursday, 18 July 2019 at 23:00:03 UTC, bauss wrote:
>> Microsoft has published article about needing a safer system programming language.
>>
>> https://msrc-blog.microsoft.com/2019/07/18/we-need-a-safer-systems-programming-language/ 
>>
>>
>> Could D (Most likely as betterC) have fit into that domain OR is it not yet safe?
> 
> Rust is the winner.
> https://msrc-blog.microsoft.com/2019/07/22/why-rust-for-safe-systems-programming/ 
> 
I wouldn't say so:
```
...
While researching Rust, we found some issues that gave and continue to give us pause. Some of these concerns include how to regulate the usage of the “unsafe” superset of Rust at scale, lack of first-class interoperability with C++, and interoperability with existing Microsoft tooling.
...
But we’re excited about the possibilities. While there are many questions still left to figure out about how Rust fits into the overall Microsoft engineering story, we encourage others to join us in taking a serious look at the language for their systems programming needs.
```

In fact they already have problem using Rust and they don't know how to solve them. They just are excited.

On Wednesday, 24 July 2019 at 08:45:19 UTC, drug wrote:
> In fact they already have problem using Rust and they don't know how to solve them. They just are excited.

Can you elaborate a little on these issues?

On Wednesday, 24 July 2019 at 08:56:58 UTC, aliak wrote:
> On Wednesday, 24 July 2019 at 08:45:19 UTC, drug wrote:
>> In fact they already have problem using Rust and they don't know how to solve them. They just are excited.
>
> Can you elaborate a little on these issues?

Oh you mean the things they mentioned :o)

On Wednesday, 24 July 2019 at 08:45:19 UTC, drug wrote:
> In fact they already have problem using Rust and they don't know how to solve them. They just are excited.

Sounds more like they are playing a game of internal politics.  If demand for a feature increases it is more likely to land in tooling...

On Thursday, 18 July 2019 at 23:00:03 UTC, bauss wrote:
> Microsoft has published article about needing a safer system programming language.
>
> https://msrc-blog.microsoft.com/2019/07/18/we-need-a-safer-systems-programming-language/
>
> Could D (Most likely as betterC) have fit into that domain OR is it not yet safe?

I am new to D-Lang community.
I am impressed at the level of openness that the moderators have in this forum, to be honest.

The number of negativism in some posts is very high.
To the point where it is actually hard to understand the technical details behind
particular grievances.

Rust has theoretical foundations behind its type system and compile-time checking of the pointer ownership.  Some great innovation and pragmatic, focused implementation team(s).

But D has a whole language operating on meta-types, plus a number of very mature backends integrating into C/C++ ecosystems.

So D's metaprogramming capabilities can, technically,  allow it to become
Rust, Scala, Agda, Idris, Coq and Z3.

Sure D's bolt package is a 'nascent' step (more like a utility) of a type algebras.

And, yes, languages with non-trivial type algebras take very  long to build (and require advanced understanding of dependent types, relation program derivation and so on)

But, there is really nothing else like D out there.

As for Microsoft, It would be interesting to hear how they view  D's BetterC and its, hopefully soon, upcoming DIP 1000
for their Driver Verification (SLAM)
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/project/slam/
And building devices drivers in BetterC (since it specifically allows to use C's or C++ runtime).

On Thursday, 18 July 2019 at 23:00:03 UTC, bauss wrote:
> Microsoft has published article about needing a safer system programming language.
>
> https://msrc-blog.microsoft.com/2019/07/18/we-need-a-safer-systems-programming-language/
>
> Could D (Most likely as betterC) have fit into that domain OR is it not yet safe?

I am Japanese. I would not mind other people's evaluation if they fit my values, but I felt a little sad that nothing was mentioned in the article.

In Japanese companies, many people think based on the opinions of large companies. Some companies even purposely appeal that the product is 100% Microsoft technology. I think it is certain that Rust's rating goes up.

But they don't think about memory safety, and they only do enough with GC. I can say they will not use Rust in Japan. And since the practicality and productivity of D do not change, there is no pessimism.


By the way, D-man (and Gopher) are very popular in Japan.

https://www.instagram.com/p/Bq45DGfFLg-/

On Friday, 26 July 2019 at 03:29:33 UTC, vladislavp wrote:
>
> The number of negativism in some posts is very high.
> To the point where it is actually hard to understand the technical details behind
> particular grievances.
>

What do you mean with negativism. Is it negativism towards other languages, which could be expected as this is a D forum. Or is it negativism towards technical problems with the D language itself.

On Thursday, 25 July 2019 at 21:23:20 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
> On Wednesday, 24 July 2019 at 08:45:19 UTC, drug wrote:
>> In fact they already have problem using Rust and they don't know how to solve them. They just are excited.
>
> Sounds more like they are playing a game of internal politics.  If demand for a feature increases it is more likely to land in tooling...

That's how I read it too.

I just wonder, if this will really work in the real world:

'According to an internal survey, the top reason for adoption was “correctness” – an extension of Rust’s safety guarantees that work towards making true the adage “if it compiles, then it works”.' [1]

After all, it's MS ;)

[1] https://msrc-blog.microsoft.com/2019/07/22/why-rust-for-safe-systems-programming/