• SteveGuo (5/5) Aug 02 2013 D is a system language. I noticed that D support os like win32
• H. S. Teoh (5/10) Aug 02 2013 Why is it a bad thing for it to be a systems language? :)
• SteveGuo (2/4) Aug 02 2013 I'm just a little bit worry about, when new os borns, D has to
• Tofu Ninja (3/10) Aug 02 2013 I think it is more of a matter of writing compilers that can
• Peter Alexander (4/6) Aug 03 2013 This is true of every non-trivial language, regardless if it's a
• H. S. Teoh (23/31) Aug 02 2013 C++'s problems aren't all because of OS compatibility. There are many

"SteveGuo" <steveguo outlook.com> writes:

D is a system language. I noticed that D support os like win32 
via standard library.

But I want to know why D was designed to be a system language? 
Why D wasn't designed as a non-system language? Is there any 
reason?

"H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> writes:

On Sat, Aug 03, 2013 at 12:51:11AM +0200, SteveGuo wrote:
 D is a system language. I noticed that D support os like win32 via
 standard library.
 
 But I want to know why D was designed to be a system language? Why D
 wasn't designed as a non-system language? Is there any reason?

Why is it a bad thing for it to be a systems language? :)


T

-- 
Truth, Sir, is a cow which will give [skeptics] no more milk, and so they are
gone to milk the bull. -- Sam. Johnson

"SteveGuo" <steveguo outlook.com> writes:

 Why is it a bad thing for it to be a systems language? :)


 T

I'm just a little bit worry about, when new os borns, D has to 
support it, time goes by, D will become another overstuffed C++?

"Tofu Ninja" <emmons0 purdue.edu> writes:

On Friday, 2 August 2013 at 23:51:22 UTC, SteveGuo wrote:
 Why is it a bad thing for it to be a systems language? :)


 T

 I'm just a little bit worry about, when new os borns, D has to 
 support it, time goes by, D will become another overstuffed C++?

I think it is more of a matter of writing compilers that can 
support a new os rather than changing the language to support it

"Peter Alexander" <peter.alexander.au gmail.com> writes:

On Friday, 2 August 2013 at 23:51:22 UTC, SteveGuo wrote:
 I'm just a little bit worry about, when new os borns, D has to 
 support it, time goes by, D will become another overstuffed C++?

This is true of every non-trivial language, regardless if it's a 
systems language. The JVM, for example, will not just magically 
run on a new platform.

"H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> writes:

On Sat, Aug 03, 2013 at 01:51:17AM +0200, SteveGuo wrote:
Why is it a bad thing for it to be a systems language? :)


T

 
 I'm just a little bit worry about, when new os borns, D has to
 support it, time goes by, D will become another overstuffed C++?

C++'s problems aren't all because of OS compatibility. There are many
language-level issues and design decisions like backward-compatibility
with C that, although it helped adoption in the short term, greatly hurt
the language in the long term. C++ had a lot of good ideas, but backward
compatibility with C became a big obstacle to doing things in a clean
way. As a result, you have bandages upon bandages upon workarounds, and
eventually C++ became to huge that I don't know if even Stroustroup
himself knows the entire language without looking it up in the specs.

Java also supports many OSes, but that hasn't affected it very much,
mainly because Java welds the hood shut so that it's very hard for you
to actually interact with the host OS. This causes a lot of performance
issues which cannot be fixed without breaking portability (by using JNI)
or until an interfacing library has been officially adopted and
implemented on your target OS.

In D, you can freely interact with your host OS if you so wish, but you
can also use libraries that abstract away the details of the OS so that
the same code can run anywhere (in theory, anyway -- even Java hasn't
really fulfilled the promise of "write once, run anywhere" -- it's more
like "write once, debug everywhere"). D is all about choice. :)


T

-- 
Music critic: "That's an imitation fugue!"