D as a Better C
dlang.org
D as a Better C
1–10 of 193 posts
Re: D as a Better C
#2D is betting hard on memory safety, and apparently system programming
honestly i think, had they gone in the direction of D as a better Python, and application development, they would have made bigger wins (in terms of popularity) ... better tooling, better ide, refactoring, better GC, better libraries ... better faster programs
Re: D as a Better C
#3D is betting hard on memory safety, and apparently system programming honestly i think, had they gone in the direction of D as a better Python, and application development, they would have made bigger wins (in terms of popularity) ... better tooling, better ide, refactoring, better GC, better libraries ... better faster programs
The better Python market isn't an easy one to crack because its a bit crowded. Go (despite its perceived and real faults) has succeeded in this space by delivering better GC, good libraries, static typing and faster programs. Python itself is improving rapidly, for example with the addition of Type Hints. Its pretty difficult to be a better Python in 2017.
The better C market, on the other hand, hasn't seen any real contender other than C++ gain traction for decades. Rust is trying now and it could get there, but its still a massive opportunity.
Re: D as a Better C
#4D is betting hard on memory safety, and apparently system programming honestly i think, had they gone in the direction of D as a better Python, and application development, they would have made bigger wins (in terms of popularity) ... better tooling, better ide, refactoring, better GC, better libraries ... better faster programs
D's objective is/was not to be popular but rather to be exactly what it is: a better low-level language.
From what I can gather, it succeeded pretty well at that, lacking maybe some hype. The recent open-sourcing of the toolchain might help though.
Re: D as a Better C
#5D is betting hard on memory safety, and apparently system programming honestly i think, had they gone in the direction of D as a better Python, and application development, they would have made bigger wins (in terms of popularity) ... better tooling, better ide, refactoring, better GC, better libraries ... better faster programs
The better Python market isn't an easy one to crack because its a bit crowded. Go (despite its perceived and real faults) has succeeded in this space by delivering better GC, good libraries, static typing and faster programs. Python itself is improving rapidly, for example with the addition of Type Hints. Its pretty difficult to be a better Python in 2017. The better C market, on the other hand, hasn't seen any real…
And on embedded even C++ hardly managed to overtake C.
Re: D as a Better C
#6D is betting hard on memory safety, and apparently system programming honestly i think, had they gone in the direction of D as a better Python, and application development, they would have made bigger wins (in terms of popularity) ... better tooling, better ide, refactoring, better GC, better libraries ... better faster programs
The better Python market isn't an easy one to crack because its a bit crowded. Go (despite its perceived and real faults) has succeeded in this space by delivering better GC, good libraries, static typing and faster programs. Python itself is improving rapidly, for example with the addition of Type Hints. Its pretty difficult to be a better Python in 2017. The better C market, on the other hand, hasn't seen any real…
I really really don't been to pile on Python... but every time I've had to interact with it I've been shocked at how slow it is compared with C or C++. I tend to write scientific code to process datasets in the range on 10Gb, for simple operations Python code can take hours as opposed to just taking minutes or seconds in C.
I'm sure it's possible to write more highly optimized code in Python, but it never seems to be the case with the code bases I've worked with. With my own code (a few years ago now), I spent significant time optimizing and the final result was something that was still significantly slower than C/C++. Overall, for my work, I couldn't see an advantage.
Am I just doing it wrong? Currently Go seems far more appealing to me and I've enjoyed using it (maybe I should also try Rust).
Re: D as a Better C
#7 int main(char** argv, int argc) {
Re: D as a Better C
#8int main(char** argv, int argc) { Really? :-)
shrug if an argv falls in the lexer and there's no backend to hear it, did it really matter to the AST? ;)
Re: D as a Better C
#9D is betting hard on memory safety, and apparently system programming honestly i think, had they gone in the direction of D as a better Python, and application development, they would have made bigger wins (in terms of popularity) ... better tooling, better ide, refactoring, better GC, better libraries ... better faster programs
The two are clearly not mutually exclusive. The standard library, IMO of course, is already structured in such a way that it can be used in a very high level way.
Re: D as a Better C
#10Does anyone know what the package management story is like for D? And also what is the D ecosystem like for embedded systems?