Comment by 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;
Your first example doesn't make sense, because
is also fine and idiomatic in C. It is rather
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
vs
.
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"?
> is also fine and idiomatic in C
It's inelegant because without the typedef, you need to prefix it always with `struct`. This is inelegant because all other types do not need a prefix. It also makes it clumsier to refactor the code (adding or subtracting the leading `struct`). The typedef workaround is extremely commonplace.
> I like it that the compiler forces me to forward type stuff, it makes the code much more readable
That means when opening a file, you see the first part of the file first. In C, then you see a list of forward references. This isn't what you want to see - you want to see first the public interface, not the implementation details. (This is called "above the fold", coming from what you see in a folded stack of newspapers for sale. The headlines are not hidden below the fold or in the back pages.) In C, the effect of the forward reference problem is that people tend to organize the code backwards, with the private leaf functions first and the public functions last.
> include vs import is no difference
Oh, there is a looong list of kludgy problems stemming from a separate macro processor that is a completely distinct language from C. Even the expressions in a macro follow different rules than in C. If you've ever used a language with modules, you'll never want to go back to #include!
> What do you do when your file contains spaces?
A very good question! The module names must match the filename, and so D filenames must conform to D's idea of what an identifier is. It sounds like a limitation, but in practice, why would one want a module name different from its filename? I can't recall anyone having a problem with it. BTW, you can write:
and it will look up `core/stdc/stdio.d` (Linux, etc.) or `core\stdc\stdio.d` on Windows.
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.
Build times are quite a bit faster.
The package system is called dub.
Memory management options include:
1. stack allocation
2. malloc allocation
3. write your own allocator
4. static allocation
5. garbage collection
You can use exceptions or returns for error handling.
The biggest memory safety feature it has is length-delimited arrays. No more array overflows! The cost of it is the same as in std::vector when you do the bounds checked option. D also uses refs, relegating pointers to unusual uses. I don't know what you mean by "participating in optimizations".
(a) C doesn't have the hack that C++ has regarding the tag names. D has auto.
(b) D has much faster compile times than C++.
(c) The practical benefit is the language is much easier to master.
Everything except the import looks like standard c++ since at least 98.
C++ does not allow forward references outside of structs. The point-of-instantiation and point-of-declaration rules for templates produces all kinds of subtle problems. D does not have that issue.
Yes, you absolutely can get the job done with C and C++. But neither is an elegant language, and that puts a cognitive drag on writing and understanding code.