← Back to context

Comment by billforsternz

19 hours ago

There is some irony in someone replying to the author of the D language suggesting that maybe the D language is the real solution he's looking for.

16 comments

billforsternz

Reply
WalterBright  4 hours ago

> maybe the D language is the real solution he's looking for

Yes, I realized that after not finding any 'droids.

publicdebates  18 hours ago

It might be the language he is looking for, but it might not, and more likely than not is not. D is one of those odd languages which most likely ought to have gotten a lot more popular than it did, but for one reason or another, never quite caught on. Perhaps one reason is because it lacks a sense of eccentricity and novelty that other languages in its weight class have. Or perhaps it's just too unfamiliar in all the wrong ways. Whatever the case may be, popularity is in fact one of the most useful metrics when ruling out a potential language for a new project. And if D does not meet GP's requirements in terms of longevity or commercial support, I would certainly not suggest GP adopt it too eagerly, simply because it happens to check off most or all their technological requirements.

  • WalterBright  17 hours ago

    D is an elegant re-imagine of C and C++. For a trivial example,

        typedef struct S { int a; } S;

    becomes simply:

        struct S { int a; }

    and unlike C:

        extern int foo();
    int bar() { return foo(); }
    int foo() { return 6; }

    you have:

        int bar() { return foo(); }
    int foo() { return 6; }

    For more complex things:

        #include <foo.h>

    becomes:

        import foo;

    • 1718627440  4 hours ago

      Your first example doesn't make sense, because

          struct S { int a; };

      is also fine and idiomatic in C. It is rather

          typedef struct S { int a; } S;

      that doesn't make sense, because why would you make something opaque and expose it immediately again in the same line?

      The others are ... different. I can't tell whether they are really better. The second maybe, although I like it that the compiler forces me to forward type stuff, it makes the code much more readable. But then again I don't really get the benefit of

          import foo;

      vs

          #include <foo>

      .

      include vs import is no difference. # vs nothing makes it clear that it is a separate feature instead of just a language keyword. < vs " make it clear whether you use your own stuff or stuff from the system. What do you do when your file contains spaces? Does import foo bar; work for including a file a single file, named "foo bar"?

      1 reply →

    • publicdebates  10 hours ago

      Smoe of these are definitely nice-to-haves*, but when you're evaluating a C++ alternative, there are higher priority features to research first.

      How are the build times? What does its package system(s) look like, and how populated are they? What are all its memory management options? How does it do error handling and what does that look like in real world code? Does it have any memory safety features, and what are their devtime/comptime/runtime costs? Does it let me participate in compile time optimizations or computations?

      Don't get me wrong, we're on the same page about wanting to find a language that fills the C++ niche, even if it will never be as ideal as C++ in some areas (since C++ is significantly worse in other areas, so it's a fair trade off). But just like dating, I'm imagining the fights I'll have with the compiler 3 months into a full time project, not the benefits I'll get in the first 3 days.

      * (a) I've been using structs without typedef without issue lately, which has its own benefits such as clarifying whether the type is simple or aggregate in param lists, while auto removes the noise in function bodies. (b) Not needing forward declarations is convenient, but afaik it can't not increase compile times at least somewhat. (c) I like the consistency here, but that's merely a principle; I don't see any practical benefit.

      1 reply →

  • pests  15 hours ago

    I'm sorry, is this an in-joke or satire or something? I can't tell really. Maybe a woosh moment, and as others have said, the GP/person you are speaking about, Walter Bright, is the creator of the D language. Maybe you didn't read your parent's post? Not saying its intentional, but it almost seems rude to keep speaking in that way about someone present in the conversation.