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

OpenD, a D language fork that is open to your contributions

dpldocs.info

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 322 posts

Re: OpenD, a D language fork that is open to your contributions

#231

Post by kadoban »

softirq wrote: post #230

D is a real anomaly to me because it should have had the same trajectory as Rust, it vastly improved upon other systems languages at conception, the authors evangelized it, including at FAANG, and yet, Rust seems to have gained traction everywhere D failed to do so. Even in places where C++ has historically been shunned, Rust has some traction (Linux Kernel). I now believe that language adoption is just a product of…

Timing is important. D was like year 2000, Rust 2015 or something? A lot had changed in the meantime.

Re: OpenD, a D language fork that is open to your contributions

#232

Post by riwsky »

whatyesaid wrote: post #187
resonious wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What kind of solution would you propose to folks like your boss? One positive aspect I see about "rewrite it in Rust" is that you can to some degree expect a random Rust project to not leak and crash and expose vulnerabilities quite as much as a random C++ project. It's silly, but "written in Rust" acts somewhat as a badge of safety and performance, whereas "written in Java" and "written in C++" each only carry one o…

How is a software written in Java having less assurances in terms of leaks/crashes etc compared to Rust? All Rust gives you is a borrow checker that isn't very smart, but means you don't need GC/VM, so you gain a bit of performance compared to Java. But if it's not software that needs to go fast, then Rust is not adding anything for you. And if you considered Java to begin with you probably don't need top tier perfor…

The parent didn’t suggest Java is less safe; their point is “Java is safe; C++ is fast; Rust is both” and they just phrased it unclearly

Re: OpenD, a D language fork that is open to your contributions

#233

Post by they4kman »

usrusr wrote: post #161
resonious wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What kind of solution would you propose to folks like your boss? One positive aspect I see about "rewrite it in Rust" is that you can to some degree expect a random Rust project to not leak and crash and expose vulnerabilities quite as much as a random C++ project. It's silly, but "written in Rust" acts somewhat as a badge of safety and performance, whereas "written in Java" and "written in C++" each only carry one o…

That example is really difficult, because between the lines it sounds like it has been working sufficiently well despite the cowboy style, substituting methodical error-avoidance with that special kind of brilliance of super deep code knowledge and remembering all the pitfalls. Very difficult situation. Regarding "rewrite in Rust", I believe that it's a smaller part of the appeal of Rust than it appears based on the…

> the entire explorative part of software development that is really not the strong point of Rust

This is what keeps me orbiting but never quite landing on Rust. Things I'm pretty damn sure are safe come back red-stamped, and once I've painted things the way Rust deigns, I find I've lost my appetite. When desire finally returns, I find the fixes I've made to enable compilation also disallow the changes I wanted in the first place.

For all its faults and runtime bloat, I find myself going for Go on new things I would've attempted in Rust before. Though, I've never tried Zig; I wonder how that is...

Re: OpenD, a D language fork that is open to your contributions

#234

Post by rnd0 »

flohofwoe wrote: post #182

I fail to see any negative aspects of having multiple compiler implementations around. IMHO that's the main reason why C became so popular, compilers are free to explore into different directions, language extensions that have proven their worth will eventually be picked up by other implementations, and sometimes even make it into the standard without being butchered too much by the committee agreement process.

I'm confused, I thought that there already were 3 around? Or at least 2? gcc plus the one from dlang?

Re: OpenD, a D language fork that is open to your contributions

#235

Post by sixthDot »

rnd0 wrote: post #234
flohofwoe wrote: post #182

I fail to see any negative aspects of having multiple compiler implementations around. IMHO that's the main reason why C became so popular, compilers are free to explore into different directions, language extensions that have proven their worth will eventually be picked up by other implementations, and sometimes even make it into the standard without being butchered too much by the committee agreement process.

I'm confused, I thought that there already were 3 around? Or at least 2? gcc plus the one from dlang?

the 3rd, LDC, uses LLVM as backend. Both all share the same frontend. https://dlang.org/download.html

open-D is not a 4th implementation it's a fork.

Re: OpenD, a D language fork that is open to your contributions

#236

Post by voakbasda »

kadoban wrote: post #231
softirq wrote: post #230

D is a real anomaly to me because it should have had the same trajectory as Rust, it vastly improved upon other systems languages at conception, the authors evangelized it, including at FAANG, and yet, Rust seems to have gained traction everywhere D failed to do so. Even in places where C++ has historically been shunned, Rust has some traction (Linux Kernel). I now believe that language adoption is just a product of…

Timing is important. D was like year 2000, Rust 2015 or something? A lot had changed in the meantime.

Community is everything, and D leadership smothered theirs like a bag of kittens in the river.

Re: OpenD, a D language fork that is open to your contributions

#238

Post by zozbot234 »

softirq wrote: post #230

D is a real anomaly to me because it should have had the same trajectory as Rust, it vastly improved upon other systems languages at conception, the authors evangelized it, including at FAANG, and yet, Rust seems to have gained traction everywhere D failed to do so. Even in places where C++ has historically been shunned, Rust has some traction (Linux Kernel). I now believe that language adoption is just a product of…

Rust has memory safety without GC, and a from-scratch language design. D is an evolutionary development of C++ (which is also gaining new features of its own) with little to recommend it besides. A comparison with Carbon and cppfront is also instructive, note that both of those have not added GC to the language.

Re: OpenD, a D language fork that is open to your contributions

#239

Post by Conscat »

eklavya wrote: post #130
fsckboy wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i don't make memory safety errors in C or C++. i'd recommend embracing hungarian naming (if you call it apps-hungarian you've not embraced it fully enough, read older documentation) and be as rigid as rust about using it. i-, c-, p-, and Max are your best friends, don't declare one of those without declaring all the others that you will need. using hungarian, adopt naming conventions about Open/Close, Init/Finish, Al…

I should take this to the security team although I have a hunch that they'll think I am full of shit. What with the CVE count never going down with asan, ubsan, tsan and all kinds of guidelines, analyzers, tests and what not.

Hungarian notation has never been proven to reduce errors compared to strong types, and the CppCoreGuidelines tell you not to use it. clang-tidy can largely automate Hungarian notation, at least.

Re: OpenD, a D language fork that is open to your contributions

#240

Post by josefx »

softirq wrote: post #230

D is a real anomaly to me because it should have had the same trajectory as Rust, it vastly improved upon other systems languages at conception, the authors evangelized it, including at FAANG, and yet, Rust seems to have gained traction everywhere D failed to do so. Even in places where C++ has historically been shunned, Rust has some traction (Linux Kernel). I now believe that language adoption is just a product of…

When I heard about D it was often in combination with issues that seemed rather basic. Like multiple mutually exclusive runtime libraries that made D libraries incompatible with each other from the start, or hard version breaks that where trying to solve fundamental issues but also caused projects to lag behind for years. Have you seen how long the Python 2 to 3 migration took? The news cycles didn't do anything to fix that mess either.
Post reply on HN