How dependent is D nowadays on GC?
If you use D as BetterC, it's impossible to use the GC.
D 2.096 and other news
71–80 of 86 posts
Re: D 2.096 and other news
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you're being absolutely extreme then sure that's true. I wasn't being extreme. I was making a statement based on year after year seeing people make the same claim. After the GC is gone, then it's the legacy C++ code, the lack of documentation, the lack of developers experienced with C++, the tooling, various language issues, and on and on. The thing is, you can already disable the GC and slap @nogc on your progr…
If you had said "No one ever decided not to use D because of the GC" or something along those lines sure... I'd agree. But your claim was "No one ever decided to use any language whatsoever because it didn't have a GC." and that's simply untrue. If C++ got a GC I would immediately stop using it and would have never used it to begin with. All the rest of your points in your follow up post are very specific to D and ye…
> But your claim was "No one ever decided to use any language whatsoever because it didn't have a GC." and that's simply untrue. If C++ got a GC I would immediately stop using it and would have never used it to begin with.
There are some English issues with your post (using a language because it doesn't have a GC is pretty different from quitting a language because it has a GC) so I'm going to let this discussion die.
Re: D 2.096 and other news
#73I ended up playing around with D for a bit before moving to Rust and here were my thoughts Pros 1. It felt very practical. 2. Handling packages using Dub was great 3. The D programming book by Ali Çehreli was a great introduction http://ddili.org/ders/d.en/index.html 4. A lot of criticism around D were outdated. Whenever you search stuff about D you still find people talking about the split, disabling the GC invalida…
Recently I got fed up with C++ for good and have no interest in touching it anymore. There's just a sheer amount of complexity and lack of free (as in beer) tooling that has driven me mad these past years until I finally gave up last month. Then I checked D and I wanted to try it, but couldn't get a Rider/IntellliJ (can't recall) plugin to work, so I also marked it as lack of tooling; I also couldn't find many code e…
Join our discord and we can help you out if you'd like https://discord.gg/bMZk9Q4
There is a lot of D code out there trust me, say what you will about our forum but it is rapid!
Re: D 2.096 and other news
#74The more time I spend with Python, the more it seems to me that a language defined abstractly and having multiple implementations (none "official") seems to be the healthiest compared to one with a reference compiler/interpreter. D seems to have one "reference compiler" and just a "reference manual".
There's definitely more D compilers than Rust compilers... that automatically implies D is 'the healthiest'?
Re: D 2.096 and other news
#75We are using D in our laboratory and found that it has been incredibly easy to onboard Python and Go programmers, and they are more productive to boot. We miss the packages /ecosystem libraries of some other languages , but otherwise the experience has been excellent.
Re: D 2.096 and other news
#76C++ always felt like C with the whole kitchen sink, the plumbing system, the neighbourhood sewer system and the county water treatment system thrown in.
Whereas D always felt like an actual evolution of C. D always seems like it fell into a weird place. It's too high level for C people and too low level for higher level programmers. It also had that weird history of starting closed source and only opening after they'd missed the bus so to speak.
Personally, i wish things would have been different. I wish people were posting silly comment memes about too many D related posts on hn rather than rust or golang ones.
The tools D offers and its general philosophy just fits with the way I think about programming. It gives you every tool you need or could want, without getting all Perl on you, gives you the freedom to choose your programming paradigm without imposing one on you, stops you from shooting yourself in the face, but still lets you shoot yourself in the foot if your really, really want to and you tell it to explicitly allow you to.
It's always felt like just a programming language where you can get whatever you want done, in whatever way you sent without hassle...maybe someday...if the community and grew to the point of bigger more popular languages.
I've always felt it to be underrated and for some reason one of those languages people seem to have a strong opinion about, even if they don't know much about it, but in a subtle way where it doesn't get mentioned unless someone brings it up.
Re: D 2.096 and other news
#77We need more D compilers. Hopefully OpenWatcom and OrangeC will also provide D compilers.
Re: D 2.096 and other news
#78D is exactly what i wanted C++ to be I recommend everyone to try it out if you are fed up with clunkiness and slow to compile C++
And what I wanted C# v1.0 to be as well.
Re: D 2.096 and other news
#79Tangential to OP's link, I am suprised at how easy creating Windows apps with gtkD is. I figured there would be a lot more steps/configuring/etc. [0: Video link below] Seems quicker to get started on a new app than Visual Studio + W10 SDK? (or other offical MS Libs) Then again...that's not a high bar when it comes to VS. 0: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLft7ynzers&t=410s
As "simple" as GtkD might be, I suggest to actually learn Windows Forms, WPF or WinUI, including the visual designers and Blend.
Re: D 2.096 and other news
#80We need more D compilers. Hopefully OpenWatcom and OrangeC will also provide D compilers.
What would these compilers have as advantage over the existing compilers?
Back when there was just one D compiler the common complaint was that this was too few. Now that there are three you sometimes read that there are too many. This is the first time I see someone needing more :)