There's a big thread about this on the D forums: https://forum.dlang.org/thread/beykokfitddfdsjyqjjy@forum.dl...
OpenD, a D language fork that is open to your contributions
41–50 of 322 posts
Re: OpenD, a D language fork that is open to your contributions
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the fundamental problem with D is much simpler than that, it's the technical context. D is a better C++, but it's not better enough to escape the gravitational pull of C++. Rust is sufficiently compelling, with its focus on memory safety.
Rust is a really frustrating language for me: I understand the safety it provides but find the pain of actually using it makes it uncompelling. Plus, the Rewrite it in Rust movement is very off-putting
Rust was a language that I firmly embraced for my own projects for about 2 years, then I eventually came to the conclusion that the benefits it gave me weren't really that useful for the things I was working on, and I switched away to other languages that I personally enjoy using more.
Re: OpenD, a D language fork that is open to your contributions
#43I witnessed a similar case while touring D as an outsider. When Rust was new and the concept of lifetime was brought to the D community, it was deemed unnecessary by Walter. A few years later, he brought his own lifetime proposal that is sufficiently different to Rust's and thus even less verified compared to the previous suggestion from the community. Now that I lost my interest in D, I'm not sure of the maturity of…
So now you can have a project with someone else's opinion instead of Walter's.
Not someone else, but many others. I value projects governed by multiple people because one person cannot be an expert in every field, even though that person is smarter than most people.
Re: OpenD, a D language fork that is open to your contributions
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the fundamental problem with D is much simpler than that, it's the technical context. D is a better C++, but it's not better enough to escape the gravitational pull of C++. Rust is sufficiently compelling, with its focus on memory safety.
I felt the opposite back when I was using D (specifically, D1). It was obvious that everything you can do in C++ can be done in D in so much easier way that it could have replaced C++ in a near future if done right. This is even true when we compare D1 with the current C++20, so I believe D did have a good chance that was wasted somehow.
To overcome something as entrenched as C++ it has to be 10x better. Even rust isn't there. Most of it's community isn't ex C and C++ experts, it's people getting into low-level programming for the first time, either from scripting language or pure functional.
Re: OpenD, a D language fork that is open to your contributions
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the fundamental problem with D is much simpler than that, it's the technical context. D is a better C++, but it's not better enough to escape the gravitational pull of C++. Rust is sufficiently compelling, with its focus on memory safety.
I felt the opposite back when I was using D (specifically, D1). It was obvious that everything you can do in C++ can be done in D in so much easier way that it could have replaced C++ in a near future if done right. This is even true when we compare D1 with the current C++20, so I believe D did have a good chance that was wasted somehow.
> It was obvious that everything you can do in C++ can be done in D in so much easier way that it could have replaced C++ in a near future if done right.
Do you have an opinion on how the GC schism within D affected it competitively with regards to C/C++?
Re: OpenD, a D language fork that is open to your contributions
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
I felt the opposite back when I was using D (specifically, D1). It was obvious that everything you can do in C++ can be done in D in so much easier way that it could have replaced C++ in a near future if done right. This is even true when we compare D1 with the current C++20, so I believe D did have a good chance that was wasted somehow.
To overcome something as entrenched as C++ it has to be 10x better. Even rust isn't there. Most of it's community isn't ex C and C++ experts, it's people getting into low-level programming for the first time, either from scripting language or pure functional.
Don't we consider a C/C++ replacement "successful" when it was able to capture enough share of prior C/C++ uses, not the entire share? I never thought C or C++ could be completely gone out of sight, even COBOL is technically alive today (on life support). To be clear, I meant that D could have been in the position of Rust today if done right.
Re: OpenD, a D language fork that is open to your contributions
#47In the last decade, we've had many learning experiences around governance of programming languages. Most of the changing languages that come to mind, I realize, that they, too, had a big upset or oops related to governance. I now think one of the key things to look for in a programming language is governance -- what they say about how they do it, what they actually do, how that's working out so far, and how you think…
Things have not gotten better. The 1960s-80s model of writing standards was so much better and restricted the politicking to a brief period.
Re: OpenD, a D language fork that is open to your contributions
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe they shouldn’t bring D back to life… drop the name, make a clean break and come up with a new one.
Let's call it E.
E, F, G, and H are already taken.
It's hard to say whether I is available, or un-googleable.
J through W are also taken.
X++ is taken, but X seems to be available.
Y and Z are taken.
A would be an excellent choice were it not completely un-googleable.
Finally, B is a famous precursor to C.
Re: OpenD, a D language fork that is open to your contributions
#49Re: OpenD, a D language fork that is open to your contributions
#50D is such a sad case of how a good technical product can fail due to poor leadership and decision making. A language is more than just a compiler, it's also an ecosystem and a community. D's community is actually very welcoming but man, watch some of the DConf videos and Q&As on Youtube and it's cringe seeing key leaders talking down to people, or dismissing people's concerns, or just have this ego about themselves l…
I think the fundamental problem with D is much simpler than that, it's the technical context. D is a better C++, but it's not better enough to escape the gravitational pull of C++. Rust is sufficiently compelling, with its focus on memory safety.
I keep saying this and having the exact same argument with everyone every single time I mention it (and I'm sure here we'll go again), but D's fundamental problem was its GC. Its mere presence colors the code that uses it, and once your dependencies use the GC, you have no recourse. It's impossible to abstract away. I fail to see how such a language could ever substitute for C++.