On Wednesday, 24 April 2024 at 22:37:44 UTC, tony wrote:

Keep in mind even the D programmers that don't use the GC in production use it in prototyping and internal tooling.
So I'd say we all appreciate the GC in using D, by a large majority, and benefit from it.

On Tuesday, 23 April 2024 at 14:56:50 UTC, Marconi wrote:

Only a propaganda mistake. For most applications, the kind of memory management is largely irrelevant as long as there is no leak. GC at CTFE is brilliant. C++ tries to do manual memory management at CTFE (called constexpr functions) and it took them almost 10 years to get it done (C++11 introduced constexpr and C++20 had constexpr dynamic memory allocation), and even there, e.g. a std::vector can’t leave the CTFE environment and become a compile-time constant.
In D, if I need a compile-time array of non-trivial pre-calculated values that can be generated by some function, I can do this:

static immutable int[] values = {
    int[] result;
    // algorithm fills `result`
    return result;
}(); // runs at ctfe

If I want or need to, I can convert this to a static array:

enum int[] _values = {…}();
static immutable int[_values.length] values = _values;

This runs at compile-time guaranteed. It’s not an optimization. As far as I know, this is not easily done in C++. It’s certainly doable using templates, but it’s not doable in C++23 using non-template constexpr functions and e.g. std::vector.

If you don’t want the GC to run, use @nogc or full-on -betterC. Even in BetterC mode, you can use all of D’s features like GC at CTFE.

On Thursday, 25 April 2024 at 12:58:23 UTC, Guillaume Piolat wrote:

Copyright © 1999-2024 by the D Language Foundation

1999 1999 1999 1999 1999 1999 1999 1999 1999 1999 1999

???????????????????????????

Since 1999 nobody cares about Dlang.

PLEASE, ASK YOURSELF, WHY NOBODY CARES ABOUT DLANG!?

On Thursday, 25 April 2024 at 14:48:20 UTC, Marconi wrote:

What are your main languages?
In which area are you working?

On Thursday, 25 April 2024 at 12:58:23 UTC, Guillaume Piolat wrote:

I'll add: Just check with valgrind programs made by people who think they manage memory better than a GC. There are several things people dont think of. To name two: copy construction, alignment when your work with value types. Your (not nominative, more generally) own memory management system is likely to be worse than D GC ;).
Invalid reads, invalid writes, double frees, etc. La fiesta.

On Thursday, 25 April 2024 at 14:48:20 UTC, Marconi wrote:

Think about what you are claiming...

... that a language, in existence since 1999, now - 25 years later - STILL EXISTS!

... considering that, according to you, NOBODY CARES ABOUT IT!

How did it survive for 25 years if no-one cared? What bought you here? Why are you still here, considering that YOU (apparently) DON'T CARE?

You should have concluded the exact opposite - that "1999-2024" proves hat there were a sufficient number of people that cared (by using D!) to ensure that the language survived (and evolved).

D has any number of issues that frustrate people and that they complain about, but that is because they "care" enough to use the language. And I suspect even you are... in the exact same boat.

If you were right, we wouldn't be here on the D forum discussing this ... because there are no discussions/debates going on about dead languages.

On Thursday, 25 April 2024 at 14:48:20 UTC, Marconi wrote:

Seriously, programming languages have this rare ability to turn people so mad, it's incredible. So much fanboy-ism and hater-ism.