https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/3s9cfe/rust_impressions_from_a_cd_programmer_part_1/

Ali

On Tuesday, 10 November 2015 at 16:00:06 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
>
> https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/3s9cfe/rust_impressions_from_a_cd_programmer_part_1/
>
> Ali

Atila wrote:

I thought I’d like Rust more than I actually do at this point. I’m glad I’m taking the time to learn it, but I’m not sure how likely I’ll choose to use it for any future project. Currently the only real advantage it has for me over D is that it has no runtime and could more easily be used on bare metal projects.

(I'm on an iPad. Sorry for idiot quoting.)

My point: until you can easily write D bare-metal code, without any runtime, and honestly without garbage collection, it just isn't a Real Systems Language.

With the World turning to IOT, and most startups having an embedded system as at least a part of their offering, even old languages should take this seriously. Not everybody actually fathoms the size of this tsunami, or the disruption it'll bring. It's like the 80's when mini-computer corporations did't notice micro manufacturers. From their perspective, the tide turned overnight. And now it's us.

On Monday, 16 November 2015 at 00:40:33 UTC, The Old One wrote:
> My point: until you can easily write D bare-metal code, without any runtime, and honestly without garbage collection, it just isn't a Real Systems Language.

It really isn't hard. Yes, there's a learning curve to get started, but it isn't really hard once you make that initial investment.

On Monday, 16 November 2015 at 00:50:50 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
> On Monday, 16 November 2015 at 00:40:33 UTC, The Old One wrote:
>> My point: until you can easily write D bare-metal code, without any runtime, and honestly without garbage collection, it just isn't a Real Systems Language.
>
> It really isn't hard. Yes, there's a learning curve to get started, but it isn't really hard once you make that initial investment.

+1

Bare metal in D is easy now.

If a programmer isn't resourcful enough to figure it out (D.learn + RTFM) then they will do little more in C/C++/Rust/whatever than turning on an LED or two.


bye,
lobo

On Monday, 16 November 2015 at 00:40:33 UTC, The Old One wrote:
> My point: until you can easily write D bare-metal code, without any runtime, and honestly without garbage collection, it just isn't a Real Systems Language.

I'm honestly tired of reading this as if "bare metal rust" has all the same bells and whistles when the entire standard library - which includes their box(unique) and RC type - are completely disabled.

On Monday, 16 November 2015 at 00:40:33 UTC, The Old One wrote:
> With the World turning to IOT, and most startups having an embedded system as at least a part of their offering, even old languages should take this seriously. Not everybody actually fathoms the size of this tsunami, or the disruption it'll bring. It's like the 80's when mini-computer corporations did't notice micro manufacturers. From their perspective, the tide turned overnight. And now it's us.

Except IoT hasn't gone anywhere yet and I'm skeptical that it ever will.  I thought the same of smartwatches and their sales so far haven't been great.  Who really wants an internet-enabled toaster or refrigerator?  I know I don't.

You make a good point that D needs to aim for the larger embedded market, by providing better support for running stripped down.  You'll notice that the vision statement says that we're looking for people to spearhead such an effort:

http://wiki.dlang.org/Vision/2015H2

But I don't think IoT really matters, better to try and hit the actually existing embedded market.