31–40 of 86 posts
Tangential to OP's link, I am suprised at how easy creating Windows apps with gtkD is. I figured there would be a lot more steps/configuring/etc. [0: Video link below] Seems quicker to get started on a new app than Visual Studio + W10 SDK? (or other offical MS Libs) Then again...that's not a high bar when it comes to VS. 0: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLft7ynzers&t=410s
Pretty sure he used Windows.
They've been putting a lot of work into an experimental automatic C++ header generator lately. https://dlang.org/changelog/2.096.0.html#dtoh-improvements Each changelog for the last good handful has seen a lot of work in this area. I recently had to write and learn a bit of C++ for the first time, and tried at all costs to avoid it (FFI/interop from Rust or D). I wound up biting the bullet and writing C++ but I learn…
I ended up playing around with D for a bit before moving to Rust and here were my thoughts Pros 1. It felt very practical. 2. Handling packages using Dub was great 3. The D programming book by Ali Çehreli was a great introduction http://ddili.org/ders/d.en/index.html 4. A lot of criticism around D were outdated. Whenever you search stuff about D you still find people talking about the split, disabling the GC invalida…
About cons #2. Yep, I feel its momentum has been replaced by Rust for some things and Golang for other things. But zig? No one uses zig for anything serious.
People told me the same thing about Go when I started using D back in 2013. Compared to today, D didn't have a lot going on in 2013.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Imho, D's choice to be garbage collected has prevented wider adoption (that's the case for my usage at least). And as a compiled gc language, it competes squarely with golang, something that's likely hard to do, given the corporate (google) support golang has. Side note: I met the creater of D, Walter Bright (also of course famous for the digital mars compiler) at going native 2013 (now known as cppcon). Bright was t…
As just one anecdote, the mere presence of a GC made me stop looking at D more or less immediately. In terms of positioning, I think D would be better served focusing on a vertical.
A lot of people say that, but that's the tip of an iceberg of 500 items that will prevent someone that doesn't want GC from using it. In other words, nobody ever used a language only because it didn't have a GC.
They've been putting a lot of work into an experimental automatic C++ header generator lately. https://dlang.org/changelog/2.096.0.html#dtoh-improvements Each changelog for the last good handful has seen a lot of work in this area. I recently had to write and learn a bit of C++ for the first time, and tried at all costs to avoid it (FFI/interop from Rust or D). I wound up biting the bullet and writing C++ but I learn…
Where is that experimental header generator? Are you talking about the -HC command line argument for dmd?
https://dlang.org/changelog/2.091.0.html#headers
"DMD can now write C++ header files which contain bindings for declarations in existing D files that were marked as extern(C) or extern(C++)."
I ended up playing around with D for a bit before moving to Rust and here were my thoughts Pros 1. It felt very practical. 2. Handling packages using Dub was great 3. The D programming book by Ali Çehreli was a great introduction http://ddili.org/ders/d.en/index.html 4. A lot of criticism around D were outdated. Whenever you search stuff about D you still find people talking about the split, disabling the GC invalida…
About cons #2. Yep, I feel its momentum has been replaced by Rust for some things and Golang for other things. But zig? No one uses zig for anything serious.
I had the impression zig's corporate sponsor (pex.com) uses zig?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Imho, D's choice to be garbage collected has prevented wider adoption (that's the case for my usage at least). And as a compiled gc language, it competes squarely with golang, something that's likely hard to do, given the corporate (google) support golang has. Side note: I met the creater of D, Walter Bright (also of course famous for the digital mars compiler) at going native 2013 (now known as cppcon). Bright was t…
They're replacing a lot of GC'd standard library functions with @nogc functions, so people might not have to depend on the GC soon. Some people were also working on a reference counted type (that'd replace the GC I guess?) a few years ago, but I don't know what happened to that, or if it did make into the language. There are a few open RC pull requests from 2019 on the d runtime repository.
Not sure what the current state is.
I ended up playing around with D for a bit before moving to Rust and here were my thoughts Pros 1. It felt very practical. 2. Handling packages using Dub was great 3. The D programming book by Ali Çehreli was a great introduction http://ddili.org/ders/d.en/index.html 4. A lot of criticism around D were outdated. Whenever you search stuff about D you still find people talking about the split, disabling the GC invalida…
About cons #2. Yep, I feel its momentum has been replaced by Rust for some things and Golang for other things. But zig? No one uses zig for anything serious.
There's at least one company using zig for embedded software, despite its pre-release status, because it's just so much easier to work with than C.
It has a lot of potential. You're not wrong that, at the moment, it's most just potential. But people have noticed, and I think once it does finally stabilize in a year or two, it's going to be a huge for embedded type programming and system libraries that would otherwise be C. The value propositions is pretty huge for those use cases especially.
The more time I spend with Python, the more it seems to me that a language defined abstractly and having multiple implementations (none "official") seems to be the healthiest compared to one with a reference compiler/interpreter. D seems to have one "reference compiler" and just a "reference manual".
I ended up playing around with D for a bit before moving to Rust and here were my thoughts Pros 1. It felt very practical. 2. Handling packages using Dub was great 3. The D programming book by Ali Çehreli was a great introduction http://ddili.org/ders/d.en/index.html 4. A lot of criticism around D were outdated. Whenever you search stuff about D you still find people talking about the split, disabling the GC invalida…
> 3. Lack of examples,
It helps a lot to open issues on the D bugtracker when you encounter those.