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

Why I Like D

aradaelli.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 134 posts

Re: Why I Like D

#21

Post by mlyle »

bachmeier wrote: post #19
WalterBright wrote: post #5

BetterC got a lot of resistance at first, along the lines of who needs it. (BetterC is a subset of D that only relies on the C standard library.) But over time it has accumulated a lot of users, as being C without the troubles. We've gone a step further with ImportC, and now C code can be imported directly into the D compiler, which makes it easy to interface D code to your existing C base.

You seem to have some familiarity with the language. Nonetheless, you're understating a bit the degree of integration with C. You can also: create a shared library in D and call it trivially from C or any language with a FFI, call C shared libraries with little effort from D, compile a C file and add the .o file to your D program compilation command directly, use dstep to write C bindings for you, and directly #inclu…

> You seem to have some familiarity with the language.

Just to note: Walter Bright, whom you replied to, is the creator of D.

Re: Why I Like D

#22

Post by mrfox321 »

bachmeier wrote: post #19
WalterBright wrote: post #5

BetterC got a lot of resistance at first, along the lines of who needs it. (BetterC is a subset of D that only relies on the C standard library.) But over time it has accumulated a lot of users, as being C without the troubles. We've gone a step further with ImportC, and now C code can be imported directly into the D compiler, which makes it easy to interface D code to your existing C base.

You seem to have some familiarity with the language. Nonetheless, you're understating a bit the degree of integration with C. You can also: create a shared library in D and call it trivially from C or any language with a FFI, call C shared libraries with little effort from D, compile a C file and add the .o file to your D program compilation command directly, use dstep to write C bindings for you, and directly #inclu…

The person you are replying to created D.

Re: Why I Like D

#23

Post by baseballdork »

bachmeier wrote: post #19
WalterBright wrote: post #5

BetterC got a lot of resistance at first, along the lines of who needs it. (BetterC is a subset of D that only relies on the C standard library.) But over time it has accumulated a lot of users, as being C without the troubles. We've gone a step further with ImportC, and now C code can be imported directly into the D compiler, which makes it easy to interface D code to your existing C base.

You seem to have some familiarity with the language. Nonetheless, you're understating a bit the degree of integration with C. You can also: create a shared library in D and call it trivially from C or any language with a FFI, call C shared libraries with little effort from D, compile a C file and add the .o file to your D program compilation command directly, use dstep to write C bindings for you, and directly #inclu…

> You seem to have some familiarity with the language.

Well he should, he's the guy who created D.

Re: Why I Like D

#24

Post by VHRanger »

bachmeier wrote: post #19
WalterBright wrote: post #5

BetterC got a lot of resistance at first, along the lines of who needs it. (BetterC is a subset of D that only relies on the C standard library.) But over time it has accumulated a lot of users, as being C without the troubles. We've gone a step further with ImportC, and now C code can be imported directly into the D compiler, which makes it easy to interface D code to your existing C base.

You seem to have some familiarity with the language. Nonetheless, you're understating a bit the degree of integration with C. You can also: create a shared library in D and call it trivially from C or any language with a FFI, call C shared libraries with little effort from D, compile a C file and add the .o file to your D program compilation command directly, use dstep to write C bindings for you, and directly #inclu…

real r/dontyouknowwhoiam moment here

Re: Why I Like D

#25

Post by zozbot234 »

bachmeier wrote: post #19
WalterBright wrote: post #5

BetterC got a lot of resistance at first, along the lines of who needs it. (BetterC is a subset of D that only relies on the C standard library.) But over time it has accumulated a lot of users, as being C without the troubles. We've gone a step further with ImportC, and now C code can be imported directly into the D compiler, which makes it easy to interface D code to your existing C base.

You seem to have some familiarity with the language. Nonetheless, you're understating a bit the degree of integration with C. You can also: create a shared library in D and call it trivially from C or any language with a FFI, call C shared libraries with little effort from D, compile a C file and add the .o file to your D program compilation command directly, use dstep to write C bindings for you, and directly #inclu…

> You seem to have some familiarity with the language.

Remarkable understatement right there :-P

Re: Why I Like D

#26

Post by zozbot234 »

VHRanger wrote: post #20
WalterBright wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

D doesn't have evangelists or a marketing team. It's just people who find it really useful.

Quoted post unavailable.

Is it RESF, or is it Rust's unique feature of memory safety (and data race safety) without GC? D is a nice language to be sure, but it's going to have trouble matching these features. Of course, this is not meant as a criticism of D - other languages like Jai are practically in the same boat. The C++ folks are at least aware of the challenge, as is clear from the C++ Core Guidelines effort.

Re: Why I Like D

#28

Post by LAC-Tech »

baseballdork wrote: post #23
bachmeier wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to have some familiarity with the language. Nonetheless, you're understating a bit the degree of integration with C. You can also: create a shared library in D and call it trivially from C or any language with a FFI, call C shared libraries with little effort from D, compile a C file and add the .o file to your D program compilation command directly, use dstep to write C bindings for you, and directly #inclu…

> You seem to have some familiarity with the language. Well he should, he's the guy who created D.

I've seen that guys name around before, I assume he knows who Walter is and was making a joke.

Re: Why I Like D

#29

Post by WalterBright »

zozbot234 wrote: post #26
VHRanger wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

Is it RESF, or is it Rust's unique feature of memory safety (and data race safety) without GC? D is a nice language to be sure, but it's going to have trouble matching these features. Of course, this is not meant as a criticism of D - other languages like Jai are practically in the same boat. The C++ folks are at least aware of the challenge, as is clear from the C++ Core Guidelines effort.

D already has most of the memory safe features of Rust. Of course, the most valuable memory safety feature is array overflow protection, which D has had since its inception.

By most valuable, it tops the list of security vulnerabilities in compiled code, year after year.

D also has a prototype borrow checker.

Re: Why I Like D

#30

Post by WalterBright »

raphlinus wrote: post #17
WalterBright wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All languages (even C to some extent) that are in wide use evolve towards new and better ways, and obsolete old ways. I don't even recognize C++ anymore, and I wrote a frakkin compiler for it.

Speaking of people who have written C++ compilers, what do you think of Circle? Have you given any thought to targeting GPU shaders from D? I think "C-like low level control but with strong compile time metaprogramming" might be something of a sweet spot, though there is a lot of complexity to the space (mostly the oddball storage spaces).

I don't know anything about Circle. Sorry.
Post reply on HN