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

D Language accepted for inclusion in GCC

gcc.gnu.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 235 posts

Re: D Language accepted for inclusion in GCC

#191

Post by bedros »

krylon wrote: post #57

Silly me, I was under the impression that gdc was already part of gcc... Well, so at least now I am no longer mistaken. ;-) I have tried to learn D repeatedly over the last couple of years, but I was usually scared off by how complex this language is. Even so, the syntax is far cleaner than C++[1]. Also, the last time I gave it a try, something finally clicked. I am not all there yet, but I am beginning to like it. T…

I had the same feeling at first, then I built a hobby project using Python, and it was too slow, so, I rewrote it in D

I really liked D after that, I felt I'm working with python but much faster.

one advice, never use printf function in D, use write() and writeln()

Re: D Language accepted for inclusion in GCC

#192

Post by rbehrends »

Ar-Curunir wrote: post #175
kaleidic wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a big world out there. Would you ever imagine that D would be taking market share from... Extended Pascal? But there's a naval architect who designs great big ships with a 500k sloc codebase he is exploring porting to D. Web guys get the attention but enterprise users are a much bigger world than just that. If something is growing very quickly then saying it hasn't yet dethroned C, so it won't ever be significan…

I did not compare D to C, but rather to Rust, Swift, and Go. Compared to D, Go already has huge marketshare. Rust, similarly, excels in spaces that D does not endeavor to work in (no-managed-runtime settings), and is beginning to see adoption in areas where performance is critical. From what I have seen of D, it provides a C++ without some of the cruft, but without trying to solve other issues with C++-like languages…

> Why should someone choose D today over Go or Rust for any project?

D over Go: D has much better language mechanisms for abstraction and programming in the large.

Go over D: Go has an incremental, mature GC.

Rust and D do not quite target the same application domains (though there's overlap), so it's difficult to compare them. Insofar as they do (D with @nogc and @safe), the tradeoffs become rather complicated.

Re: D Language accepted for inclusion in GCC

#194

Post by slaymaker1907 »

cies wrote: post #170
donatj wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I will argue that Go is more of a better C than a better C++

Go is more a better Python. Even simpler syntax. Types and compiles to native (as they are all the fashion now). Rust is the best bet we have at a better C (and a better low-level C++). High level C++ competes with D and Go. Rust is a little too specifically targetted at the low level "systems" programming.

Go has far more in common with Java than it does with python. Arcane APIs that are incredibly difficult to use correctly while having a very simple base language.

Re: D Language accepted for inclusion in GCC

#195

Post by jeffdavis »

kal31dic wrote: post #145
kibwen wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a bit of a stretch to cast corporate funding as a negative, especially when the direction of Swift/Rust/Go are all mostly directed by community consensus rather than the corporate middlemen signing the paychecks (see the Swift community's rejection of SE-0110, the Rust's community's rejection of struct inheritance, and the Go community's rejection of aliases). Given the opportunity I'm sure that D would delight…

It's much more anti-fragile to have corporations who sponsor projects (as do we) than one or two key official sponsors. And it suits D's breadth too, because there's no single company that uses D for everything that's possible to do with it. Makes sense for Google to sponsor Go. Who is supposed to sponsor a language with versatility that encompasses C,C++ and Python and runs on the gamut of platforms. A single sponso…

Mozilla is not a normal corporation though. I donate, and I suspect many others do, as well. So maybe rust could be seen to have a lot of tiny sponsors rather than one big one?

Re: D Language accepted for inclusion in GCC

#197

Post by arunc »

jordigh wrote: post #103
geezerjay wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I'm not mistaken, Rust is being sold as a better C, not C++. Go is being marketed as a higher level language than C and Rust focused on developing network-aware concurrent applications to fill specific server needs. I may be wrong, but I'm not really sure that they target C++ or aim to replace it, unlike D. Perhaps that's the reason why both Rust and Go managed to gain so much traction and goodwill, because they a…

I emphatically disagree that C++11 has made D irrelevant. With C++11, I still have to think about fifty possible ways to do something, old and new, and all of the possible different implications and risks and segfaults I could get with each. I don't have the luxury of ignoring all C++ written before 2011, nor can I ignore all of the design decisions before 2011 that resulted in the current status of C++ features. Aft…

Is sid0 still rewriting hg server with rust? Is there a chance to convince him to use D instead ;-)

Re: D Language accepted for inclusion in GCC

#199

Post by nialv7 »

jjnoakes wrote: post #26
qznc wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone still needs to provide the man power for porting and maintaining those platforms.

Yes, understood. What I don't know is how much D-specific work is needed in the gcc backend per-target-triple. If it's a small amount of work, and the only thing really preventing it is wider adoption, this news may be the kick that it needs. If it's a large amount of work, then this news likely won't change much.

I think at least the druntime will need to be ported.

Re: D Language accepted for inclusion in GCC

#200

Post by jupp0r »

cies wrote: post #170
donatj wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I will argue that Go is more of a better C than a better C++

Go is more a better Python. Even simpler syntax. Types and compiles to native (as they are all the fashion now). Rust is the best bet we have at a better C (and a better low-level C++). High level C++ competes with D and Go. Rust is a little too specifically targetted at the low level "systems" programming.

Rust also shines when it comes to high level abstractions. This is what attracts me to the language: as in C++, it covers the super low-level stuff, but it also powerful in business logic abstractions.
Post reply on HN