Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

My Vision of D’s Future

dlang.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 211 posts

Re: My Vision of D’s Future

#71

Post by eikenberry »

The_rationalist wrote: post #60
giancarlostoro wrote: post #58

I love D and one space I want to see more of is DMD on SBC's and moreso than that D running on WebAssembly, Go and Rust do it. I consider Rust and Go the main competitors to D, not sure if others would agree, but that's just my view. Other than that it's a great language.

Let's be real, in the real world D, go or rust are not competitors to anything. Just take a look at http://www.modulecounts.com to see the gap between language ecosystems.

Using module counts is an odd metric. Languages mean much different things by modules and have radically different cultures surrounding the size and scope of a module. While an interesting metric to track, it is pretty meaningless as any sort of popularity measurement.

Re: My Vision of D’s Future

#72

Post by gravypod »

anderspitman wrote: post #66
atilaneves wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could share D .di files, which are akin to C/C++ headers, but automatically generated by the compiler.

Does this work over arbitrary concurrency barriers (ie a network), or is it for libraries only?

This. You definitely aren't attempting to build a service in one heap/address space if you're using an RPC IDL.

Re: My Vision of D’s Future

#73

Post by pjmlp »

karussell wrote: post #38
kernyan wrote: post #30

>I think we need a ridiculously fast interpreter so that we can skip machine code generation and linking. To me, this should be the default way of running unittest blocks for faster feedback, with programmers only compiling their code for runtime performance and/or to ship binaries to final users. This would also enable a REPL. I am most excited about this, where a language supports two modes 1) interpreter for devel…

Java can do this via AOT or partially also JIT compilation. For AOT there is this JEP: https://openjdk.java.net/jeps/295 and a different project: the GraalVM

As addendum, Java has had support for AOT since around 2000, the only caveat is that it has been a feature only available on third party commercial JDKs.

GCJ improved very slowly and around 2009 lost most of its developers with the release of OpenJDK.

Re: My Vision of D’s Future

#74

Post by arunc »

atilaneves wrote: post #46

I didn't submit the link but I did write the blog post. AMA!

I personally believe that it's all about _people_. How do you plan to push the community forward? After all everyone just shares their free time.

So far based on what I've observed, people in the D community is the biggest critique of it's own, even more so than any other community I've seen on the internet.

The D forum is full of shit posts thrashing D for what it is.

Re: My Vision of D’s Future

#76

Post by qznc »

qznc wrote: post #59
atilaneves wrote: post #46

I didn't submit the link but I did write the blog post. AMA!

What happened to Andrei?

> Thanks, Mike. And thanks to all for the concern - I also got a few private emails asking me for the juicy details. Of which there are none - my family needs me and some volunteering activities had to give way.

> As Jonathan mentioned I'm still working with my students and working on the Foundation administration, legal, taxes, and finances.

> I've been involved with D since 2005. That's an eternity in this business. I think bringing Atila to the fore is a great positive because it brings a fresh perspective and approach.

from https://forum.dlang.org/post/qj18h2$8o1$1@digitalmars.com

Re: My Vision of D’s Future

#78

Post by pjmlp »

thiago_fm wrote: post #11

Can somebody enlighten me, why use D when there is Rust/Go? I think on almost all cases, and also having a bigger community, it is a win for Rust/Go.

When you believe in systems programming languages with tracing GC support, powerful metaprogramming and generic code capabilities that compiles as fast as Go.

Re: My Vision of D’s Future

#79

Post by pjmlp »

snagglegaggle wrote: post #21
jordigh wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find D easier to use than Rust or Go because of familiarity. It is very obviously C and C++ inspired but without all the sharp edges. I also love D's metaprogramming. It feels almost like lisp. Go's lack of generics doesn't allow this and Rust's macros don't feel as comfortable for me. Yes, D is smaller but it's also big enough for me. I don't feel like I'm missing out on much when I'm using D. If I need a library…

Good post. I haven't used D much, but the only way I really see it as "deficient" is its inability to easily create static binaries, like Go. But in a lot of ways that is never a hard requirement (it is nice, though).

There is no issue creating static binaries.

Re: My Vision of D’s Future

#80

Post by buckminster »

scns wrote: post #40
kernyan wrote: post #30

>I think we need a ridiculously fast interpreter so that we can skip machine code generation and linking. To me, this should be the default way of running unittest blocks for faster feedback, with programmers only compiling their code for runtime performance and/or to ship binaries to final users. This would also enable a REPL. I am most excited about this, where a language supports two modes 1) interpreter for devel…

OCaml works like that

Haskell too.
Post reply on HN