D 2.069.0 released, compiler automatically ported from C++ to D

Post by kenko » Wed, Nov 04, 2015, 9:48 PM UTC

pcwalton wrote: post #62

logicchains wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some things D has that Rust doesn't: compiler-checked function purity annotations, higher-kinded types, variadic functions/generics, types parameterised by numbers, compile-time function evaluation, mixins, a fast compiler (the reference DMD compiler), powerful and convenient compile-time reflection (I think technically Rust can do anything D can at compile time, but it requires writing a syntax extension to do so).…

> higher-kinded types Well, not really. Higher-kinded type parameters are something that requires a kind (typeclass) system in the first place, which D intentionally doesn't have (as D's authors are opposed in principle).

Post by steveklabnik » Wed, Nov 04, 2015, 10:06 PM UTC

sdegutis wrote: post #73

kbenson wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who's been following the hype, but not really jumped on yet, the difference (whether real or imagined) seems to be that rust is trying to do something new , and D looks to be (and I've seen it aggressively marketed as) C++ with some better choices and cool features. Personally, I'm not really interested in C++, but I am interested in getting for familiar with a systems language, so rust interests me.

From what I understand, the only new thing Rust is contributing is managed lifetimes. Everything else is, like in D, just borrowed from other languages and put together. That said, I've mostly heard that lifetimes are still too young to be worth the trouble. So the one new thing Rust does bring to the table isn't really ready yet.

  > lifetimes are still too young

Post by jeremiep » Wed, Nov 04, 2015, 11:19 PM UTC

giancarlostoro wrote: post #80

ogezi wrote: post #26

D is a really amazing language that manages to correct the mistakes of c++ but still retain its good parts. it's a shame that it's not more popular.

I often wonder if it were released today as "new" if it would of gained plenty of more hype. One thing I think that Go has that D is lacking is the standard library. With Go you can write a web server, a mail server, and plenty of things right away out of the box. Where in D and other lovely languages you either need to get a package manager, or make your own. Outside of this small detail I think D is amazing at what…

Post by destructionator » Wed, Nov 04, 2015, 11:24 PM UTC

thepumpkin1979 wrote: post #91

destructionator wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

null deference in D doesn't throw exceptions by default on Unix so you won't see the backtrace there. If you are working in a big codebase and have this come up, you can enable core dumps and run it in a debugger to get far more information than just a line number (and line numbers are there too at least if compiled in debug mode).

does this mean there is not a way to get stack trace on OSX?

Post by pcwalton » Wed, Nov 04, 2015, 11:32 PM UTC

sdegutis wrote: post #73

kbenson wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who's been following the hype, but not really jumped on yet, the difference (whether real or imagined) seems to be that rust is trying to do something new , and D looks to be (and I've seen it aggressively marketed as) C++ with some better choices and cool features. Personally, I'm not really interested in C++, but I am interested in getting for familiar with a systems language, so rust interests me.

From what I understand, the only new thing Rust is contributing is managed lifetimes. Everything else is, like in D, just borrowed from other languages and put together. That said, I've mostly heard that lifetimes are still too young to be worth the trouble. So the one new thing Rust does bring to the table isn't really ready yet.