The Case for D
ddj.com
The Case for D
1–10 of 48 posts
Re: The Case for D
#2D is well-designed and has many wonderful features, but its documentation is so bad as to make it unusable for serious work. This article is the best reference work on D2 that I have yet seen, which should not be the case.
Also, this guy has been working on the book for over two years now. Even when it's done, it's going to be just like Grails is now: you can read the online docs, but you don't really get it until you read a certain book.
Re: The Case for D
#3D is well-designed and has many wonderful features, but its documentation is so bad as to make it unusable for serious work. This article is the best reference work on D2 that I have yet seen, which should not be the case. Also, this guy has been working on the book for over two years now. Even when it's done, it's going to be just like Grails is now: you can read the online docs, but you don't really get it until yo…
The Phobos vs Tango thing put me off too.
Re: The Case for D
#4The question is, is D better enough than C++ to make us switch?
When taking over you must not just be better, you must be a hell better to justify the cost of the switch.
Re: The Case for D
#5There are two big problems with D.
1) Everyone treats D2 as being the current stable version of the language, when it isn't. 2) Tango vs Phobos when it comes to D1.
But trust me, the D community is aware of those things. [1] There are a lot of tensions over the developments of D2, how they're going, etc. If and when D2 ever actually comes out, it should address lots of the issues.
But you may see something sooner than that.
Re: The Case for D
#6The question is, is D better enough than C++ to make us switch? When taking over you must not just be better, you must be a hell better to justify the cost of the switch.
As always, it depends on what you want. I personally find D to be way better than C++, or I wouldn't be writing a kernel in it.
Of course, individual tastes may vary.
Re: The Case for D
#7D is well-designed and has many wonderful features, but its documentation is so bad as to make it unusable for serious work. This article is the best reference work on D2 that I have yet seen, which should not be the case. Also, this guy has been working on the book for over two years now. Even when it's done, it's going to be just like Grails is now: you can read the online docs, but you don't really get it until yo…
> you can read the online docs, but you don't really get it until you read a certain book.
Isn't that expected and normal for anything that involves thinking about things a different way? D has language features that most programmers aren't familiar with, so to use the effectively involves a shift of thinking. Same with Grails.
Re: The Case for D
#8D1 + Tango == yes! Excellent combo, but serious lack in the toolchain department. DMD and OPTLINK especially is a failboat currently. LDC is based on LLVM and is "the future", but lacks windows support (exceptions! and this is inherently LLVM's problem now). DDBG is a good debugger, but is unmaintained. GDC is D on GCC, but is unmaintained.
D2 on the other hand doesn't feel like D anymore at all. Sure, there are a couple of nice things in it like ranges, but on the general perspective I could make this comparison: D1 is like C with C++ made right. D2 is D++, what C++ is to C - bloat and inconsistency.
There is also a huuuge problem with D2 and leadership/drama, which split the community. There is also problem with Phobos vs Tango - where Tango is clearly and measurably better, but that thread of issues leads to leadership drama.
Let me be clear on this (I use D every day for my projects - I am into graphics/gamedev with it). Do yourself a favor and learn D1/Tango - toolchain is bearable and there is a book about it from Apress. Community is responsive (#d, #d.tango on freenode if you demand prompt resolutions). Use Tango from SVN, use LDC or DMD if you are on Windows.
Also, check out http://www.team0xf.com:1024 - especially dog (OpenGL platform agnostic binding) and hybrid (gui on top of it). Check out http://www.dsource.org .
There are some movements within the community that will resolve by themselves soon enough - it's too good to fall apart. In the mean time you should really do yourself a favor and give it a go.
Re: The Case for D
#9The question is, is D better enough than C++ to make us switch? When taking over you must not just be better, you must be a hell better to justify the cost of the switch.
D might not be better from the glance over it, but it's little things in it that REALLY add up. I strongly recommend anyone who ever wrote C++ code to give it a go for at least a couple of months and see for themselves. That is the best way to measure - I can only give you my sincere recommendation to try it out.
Re: The Case for D
#10Kenta Cho, sole member of ABA Games, uses D to write his (excellent, open source, freeware) shmups. Go for the code, stay for the games: