3

It seems like we still resort to C or C++ when we are going to do "serious" systems programming. We have some small languages which try to come up with new stuff inside systems programming such as Go and D (I have had a little experience with D and I like it a lot so far), but those aren't very widely used (Go is from 2009, so it shouldn't be that surprising but D is from 2001). There are non-language-technical reasons why these aren't so popular, such as there aren't many jobs, frameworks etc., but exclude such things and instead focus on what features should the next generation systems programming language come with?

What do you, as a systems developer, lack in the "traditional systems programming languages" (that is C, C++ etc.)? Why do these things matter now in today's world (concurrency etc. would matter, I guess)?

Anto
  • 11,197

2 Answers2

8

The next proposed systems language should feature wide adoption.

Seriously, you haven't demonstrated anything that Go lacks besides users. Most languages are chosen not because of the language itself, but because of the libraries, tools, and support available. There needs to be an ecosystem for a language to have a chance at adoption.

I've also stated before that any new language can only succeed if it capitalizes on an emerging frontier in computing. I doubt systems programming is an emerging frontier, which may explain why D never experienced the success it may have had a few decades earlier.

I hate to be a pessimist when it comes to new programming languages, but I'm afraid that no new systems language will ever be successful.

chrisaycock
  • 6,655
3

The problem encountered when creating a new systems programming language is that computer architecture has not changed that much since the early fifties. Granted, processors have gotten a lot faster and main memory sizes have grown to levels that industry pioneers could have only dreamed about sixty years ago, but modern computers are still based on an architecture that was first introduced in the 1945 by John von Neumann.

bit-twiddler
  • 2,658