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

Post by fl7305 » Sun, Jan 14, 2024, 6:14 PM UTC

zozbot234 wrote: post #220

nwallin wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rust is a frustrating language for me too. I never saw the need for it, really. I just stuck with the language constructs in C++ that makes it basically impossible for memory leaks/use after free/use outside of bounds to occur or if they do occur, explode loudly in debug environments. I haven't used new/delete in a personal project in like a decade; longer than Rust has been around. Now I'm working on a project where…

> I still don't need rust because I don't code like a crazy person. This is not a foolproof argument because safety problems can easily result from unforeseen interactions among parts of the code that all seem to be OK and not "crazy" locally. A significant benefit of something like the borrow checker is that it can suss out these problematic interactions in a comprehensive way, even at the cost of forbidding some co…

  use std::sync::Arc;
  use std::thread;
  use std::time::Duration;
  
  fn main() {
      let shared_data = Arc::new(42); // Create an Arc
      let weak_ref = Arc::downgrade(&shared_data); // Create a Weak reference
  
      let thread_handle = thread::spawn(move || {
          // Simulate some work
          println!("Thread Data: {}", shared_data);
          thread::sleep(Duration::from_millis(10));
          // The Arc is dropped at the end of this thread
      });
  
      // Give the other thread a little time to start up (this is part of the race condition)
      thread::sleep(Duration::from_millis(10));
  
      // Try to upgrade the Weak reference and unwrap directly in the print statement
      println!("Weak Data: {}", weak_ref.upgrade().unwrap());
  
      // Wait for the other thread to finish
      thread_handle.join().unwrap();
  }

Post by dequan » Sun, Jan 14, 2024, 6:33 PM UTC

Const-me wrote: post #136

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…

> What kind of solution would you propose to folks like your boss? Rewrite it in C#. It’s safer than Rust, because VM. Both standard and third party libraries are often way better. With modern versions of the language, GC allocations are avoidable if that’s what needed for performance reasons. C interop is equally simple.

Post by WalterBright » Sun, Jan 14, 2024, 6:39 PM UTC

fasterik wrote: post #219

xpressvideoz wrote: post #38

I 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…

I'm not too familiar with either Rust's or D's approach to lifetimes, but from some quick forum searching, it appears that adding Rust-like lifetimes to D would have required significant changes to the design of the language. Every potential feature has tradeoffs in terms of how it interacts with other language features, adds cognitive overhead, decreases compilation speed, complicates the design of the standard libr…

Post by dequan » Sun, Jan 14, 2024, 6:44 PM UTC

otabdeveloper4 wrote: post #222

verall wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're correct for D, but for Rust, we'll see. It's a very slow moving industry. I do C++ work all day (embedded) and while there's no current plans to move to Rust (which means it won't happen within the next 3-5 years), I could see it occurring someday. We're finally (usually) allowed to use C++17. I had to use C++03 at times circa 2019 - we're finally done with that. It's _really_ slow moving.

> I could see it occurring someday "Someday" is on the order of decades here. By that time Rust will be a hoary legacy language with a list of warts longer than an ISO standard.

Post by akvadrako » Sun, Jan 14, 2024, 6:48 PM UTC

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…