On Friday, 31 July 2015 at 16:09:23 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
> On Friday, 31 July 2015 at 03:30:20 UTC, Kyoji Klyden wrote:
>> So idk, it feels silly and counterproductive to have D not able to natively use C libraries. Are we just gonna have to write D bindings to every notable library out there? Also I don't see how it'd be problematic, if you don't want a C preprocessor kicking in, then just don't import any C source, and then the compiler will just skip that step.  :P
>
> That's how you end up with C++. The solution there is to use only a subset of the language, but since everyone has her own subset, you can either learn the whole language or not interact with anyone else's code. A tool-based solution is much better.

It's a fair argument. Regardless though, I feel like D has lost it practicality for me for the time being. I might come back to it in half a year and see if anything changes, but unfortunately I don't see myself using D for any of my projects I got lined up.

On Friday, 31 July 2015 at 17:14:29 UTC, Kyoji Klyden wrote:
> On Friday, 31 July 2015 at 16:09:23 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
>> On Friday, 31 July 2015 at 03:30:20 UTC, Kyoji Klyden wrote:
>>> So idk, it feels silly and counterproductive to have D not able to natively use C libraries. Are we just gonna have to write D bindings to every notable library out there? Also I don't see how it'd be problematic, if you don't want a C preprocessor kicking in, then just don't import any C source, and then the compiler will just skip that step.  :P
>>
>> That's how you end up with C++. The solution there is to use only a subset of the language, but since everyone has her own subset, you can either learn the whole language or not interact with anyone else's code. A tool-based solution is much better.
>
> It's a fair argument. Regardless though, I feel like D has lost it practicality for me for the time being. I might come back to it in half a year and see if anything changes, but unfortunately I don't see myself using D for any of my projects I got lined up.

You have to make the right decision for you.

But from what you say, I am not sure if you are making it on the basis of proper information about the tradeoffs involved.  It shouldn't be a difficult thing to port the headers for most C libraries.  Use dstep to do the work, and a bit of tidying up after (which gets easier each time).  Less time involved than that involved in trying to fix just one nasty memory leak or pointer problem in C code.

Sometimes though, cashflow dominates return on investment.  If one cannot spare the time then, ROI on learning something new is irrelevant.  One can't do much about that in the short term.

On Friday, 31 July 2015 at 19:13:18 UTC, Laeeth Isharc wrote:
> On Friday, 31 July 2015 at 17:14:29 UTC, Kyoji Klyden wrote:
>> On Friday, 31 July 2015 at 16:09:23 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
>>> On Friday, 31 July 2015 at 03:30:20 UTC, Kyoji Klyden wrote:
>>>> So idk, it feels silly and counterproductive to have D not able to natively use C libraries. Are we just gonna have to write D bindings to every notable library out there? Also I don't see how it'd be problematic, if you don't want a C preprocessor kicking in, then just don't import any C source, and then the compiler will just skip that step.  :P
>>>
>>> That's how you end up with C++. The solution there is to use only a subset of the language, but since everyone has her own subset, you can either learn the whole language or not interact with anyone else's code. A tool-based solution is much better.
>>
>> It's a fair argument. Regardless though, I feel like D has lost it practicality for me for the time being. I might come back to it in half a year and see if anything changes, but unfortunately I don't see myself using D for any of my projects I got lined up.
>
> You have to make the right decision for you.
>
> But from what you say, I am not sure if you are making it on the basis of proper information about the tradeoffs involved.  It shouldn't be a difficult thing to port the headers for most C libraries.  Use dstep to do the work, and a bit of tidying up after (which gets easier each time).  Less time involved than that involved in trying to fix just one nasty memory leak or pointer problem in C code.
>
> Sometimes though, cashflow dominates return on investment.  If one cannot spare the time then, ROI on learning something new is irrelevant.  One can't do much about that in the short term.

I definitely agree with you there. I'm sure dstep could work quite well, but at the same time, for what I'm doing, there's nothing in D I couldn't do in C, and C's the one with the libraries + the endless supply of documentation. There really isn't any reward for that extra percent of time/effort spent when using D right now.
I still think D is rad, and will probably use it again sometime :)

On Friday, 31 July 2015 at 21:35:30 UTC, Kyoji Klyden wrote:
> On Friday, 31 July 2015 at 19:13:18 UTC, Laeeth Isharc wrote:
>> On Friday, 31 July 2015 at 17:14:29 UTC, Kyoji Klyden wrote:
>>> On Friday, 31 July 2015 at 16:09:23 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
>>>> On Friday, 31 July 2015 at 03:30:20 UTC, Kyoji Klyden wrote:
>>>>> So idk, it feels silly and counterproductive to have D not able to natively use C libraries. Are we just gonna have to write D bindings to every notable library out there? Also I don't see how it'd be problematic, if you don't want a C preprocessor kicking in, then just don't import any C source, and then the compiler will just skip that step.  :P
>>>>
>>>> That's how you end up with C++. The solution there is to use only a subset of the language, but since everyone has her own subset, you can either learn the whole language or not interact with anyone else's code. A tool-based solution is much better.
>>>
>>> It's a fair argument. Regardless though, I feel like D has lost it practicality for me for the time being. I might come back to it in half a year and see if anything changes, but unfortunately I don't see myself using D for any of my projects I got lined up.
>>
>> You have to make the right decision for you.
>>
>> But from what you say, I am not sure if you are making it on the basis of proper information about the tradeoffs involved.  It shouldn't be a difficult thing to port the headers for most C libraries.  Use dstep to do the work, and a bit of tidying up after (which gets easier each time).  Less time involved than that involved in trying to fix just one nasty memory leak or pointer problem in C code.
>>
>> Sometimes though, cashflow dominates return on investment.  If one cannot spare the time then, ROI on learning something new is irrelevant.  One can't do much about that in the short term.
>
> I definitely agree with you there. I'm sure dstep could work quite well, but at the same time, for what I'm doing, there's nothing in D I couldn't do in C, and C's the one with the libraries + the endless supply of documentation. There really isn't any reward for that extra percent of time/effort spent when using D right now.
> I still think D is rad, and will probably use it again sometime :)

Walter observes that if you are a Java programmer and start writing D, you will write D like you write Java.  And so I suppose one will see what one doesn't have in Java, but not so much the benefits of D.  That's true of other languages too.  When one learns something new, one is often initially worse off as a result, because it destabilises ones habits before one sees how to apply ones new knowledge.  So those benefits only come with persistence and the passage of time.

Language familiarity can also be deceptive - "D adds nothing really new" say the Reddit guys.  But as a C guy who never got into C++, it makes a huge difference.  Just not obviously so in the beginning.  One thing that's great is to be able to come back to my own code after a break when it was written in a hurry and without too many comments and tie be able to understand it immediately.  That wasn't my experience with C, but I suppose it depends how much discipline you have.  (Also, once it compiles, the bugs are usually obvious enough and simple to fix - stronger typing has benefits).

The main advantage I have found is that one can deploy limited energy to achieve more, because one doesn't get as bogged down, and because the work is more pleasant and satisfying.

Which libraries do you miss, out of interest?

On Saturday, 1 August 2015 at 04:11:02 UTC, Laeeth Isharc wrote:
> Walter observes that if you are a Java programmer and start writing D, you will write D like you write Java.  And so I suppose one will see what one doesn't have in Java, but not so much the benefits of D.  That's true of other languages too.  When one learns something new, one is often initially worse off as a result, because it destabilises ones habits before one sees how to apply ones new knowledge.  So those benefits only come with persistence and the passage of time.
>
> Language familiarity can also be deceptive - "D adds nothing really new" say the Reddit guys.  But as a C guy who never got into C++, it makes a huge difference.  Just not obviously so in the beginning.  One thing that's great is to be able to come back to my own code after a break when it was written in a hurry and without too many comments and tie be able to understand it immediately.  That wasn't my experience with C, but I suppose it depends how much discipline you have.  (Also, once it compiles, the bugs are usually obvious enough and simple to fix - stronger typing has benefits).
>
> The main advantage I have found is that one can deploy limited energy to achieve more, because one doesn't get as bogged down, and because the work is more pleasant and satisfying.
>
> Which libraries do you miss, out of interest?

Oddly enough, before D I was a python guy. I took up C about year after starting D. So I definitely see the python influence in my coding style, in both C and D. I keep everything very minimal and tidy, so my code is always really readable; but at the same time it has made me slightly hesitant to take up some of D's more unique features, so there's definitely still alot of areas with D I know I could improve in. However, there's points with D that I know the work around to certain problems is to use some other language, because D's design for better or worse won't let me solve the problem in a effective or sane method.
I agree with you completely about how easy D makes certain things. It's just that the bigger or more complex a project becomes, I find that it doesn't matter how the language works, things are just gonna get messy.

For libraries, most of them have some type of D binding available (of varying quality). Csound doesn't have a D binding, I don't think there's a Bullet3 binding, the alembic library(which is on my todo to use) doesn't have D binding, and the WinAPI is very weird to use from D. Also software APIs such as Softimage or Houdini's API don't have one. There's a bunch of others too. I think alot of this comes from game/interactive application programmers being in the minority in the D community.
I generally don't like the whole binding scenario anyways, because there's always a bit of delay between updates in the library and the binding, and I'm unfortunately very reliant on other people's libraries at the moment :\

Also one of my hobbies that I've gotten into in the last few months is writing code for weird processors types (i.e. the MOS 6502, or the SX processor). There's always atleast a C compiler available (either official or community made). So even wishing for a D compiler for all those uncommon architectures is foolish.

Being that I have a decent idea of what I'm doing these days, it's not to hard to jump languages; but since knowing how to use a language and how to actually excel at a language is two very different things, I've chosen to get as good as possible at C, since there will be a much much larger payoff right now.  :]