Go gets parallel compilation, at last, and better garbage collection. The former is not a problem for D, but the latter…

<probably-a-troll-but-still-worth-saying-that-gc-can-change/>

-- 
Russel.
=============================================================================
Dr Russel Winder     t:+44 20 7585 2200   voip:sip:
russel.winder@ekiga.net
41 Buckmaster Road   m:+44 7770 465 077   xmpp:russel@winder.org.uk
London SW11 1EN, UK  w: www.russel.org.uk skype:russel_winder

On Monday, 19 June 2017 at 13:24:00 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
> Go gets parallel compilation, at last, and better garbage collection. The former is not a problem for D, but the latter…
>
> <probably-a-troll-but-still-worth-saying-that-gc-can-change/>

Right, D2 has a problem with the GC. It cannot be put to reasonable speed, because of initial design decisions with D memory management. If there is a reason for D3, then it is to make the required changes so that the GC can be made faster.

The GC is in my opinion very important for the success of D. Go is the best example that a programming language for "system-like" programming can have a huge success out there in the real world. If using the GC were problem free in D, a lot of projects that chose Go might have gone with D. And there are tons of applications out there that are the flag ship product of some startup company that are written in Go.

So the best thing that can happen to D, IMHO, is that the GC issue is resolved even if that required a move from D2 to D3.

On Monday, 19 June 2017 at 13:24:00 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
> The former is not a problem for D, but the latter…

Disagree. One of D's biggest competitive advantages is fast compilation of fast code. If other languages become as fast or faster than DMD in compilation speed then that's a big problem.

On Monday, 19 June 2017 at 13:24:00 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
> Go gets parallel compilation, at last, and better garbage collection. The former is not a problem for D, but the latter…
>
> <probably-a-troll-but-still-worth-saying-that-gc-can-change/>

It should also be noted that, even though it's still a research project, Scala native just recently upgraded it's Boehm GC to an Immix based one. Scala native would be yet another language competing with D, and might compete in even more domains than Go would.

On Monday, 19 June 2017 at 15:44:47 UTC, bpr wrote:
> It should also be noted that, even though it's still a research project, Scala native just recently upgraded it's Boehm GC to an Immix based one. Scala native would be yet another language competing with D, and might compete in even more domains than Go would.

Immix has a very impressive speed compared to default Boehm.

http://img.phperz.com/data/img/20170616/1497580303_4280.png

On Mon, 2017-06-19 at 15:44 +0000, bpr via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Monday, 19 June 2017 at 13:24:00 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
> > Go gets parallel compilation, at last, and better garbage collection. The former is not a problem for D, but the latter…
> > 
> > <probably-a-troll-but-still-worth-saying-that-gc-can-change/>
> 
> It should also be noted that, even though it's still a research project, Scala native just recently upgraded it's Boehm GC to an Immix based one. Scala native would be yet another language competing with D, and might compete in even more domains than Go would.

I'd be more bothered by Kotlin native that Scala native.

Scala did a lot for the JVM in terms of getting "functional" accepted as a word that wasn't a swear word. However it is a very complicated language. Kotlin is a great "half way house" in replacing Java but not being as complicated as Scala but with the same "functional objects" approach that Scala started and championed. Scala trieed as yet.d to be and now Kotlin has become the language of choice for the discerning JVM-oriented Android developer.

With Kotlin Native now announced and going great guns, it may be that C++, D, Rust, and Go, get a challenge that Scala Native has not managed.

I suspect though that like Go took Python more than C folk, Kotlin Native will take more Java that C++, Go and Rust folks. But speculation rarely turn out quite as speculated.

-- 
Russel.
=============================================================================
Dr Russel Winder     t:+44 20 7585 2200   voip:sip:
russel.winder@ekiga.net
41 Buckmaster Road   m:+44 7770 465 077   xmpp:russel@winder.org.uk
London SW11 1EN, UK  w: www.russel.org.uk skype:russel_winder

On Monday, 19 June 2017 at 13:24:00 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
> Go gets parallel compilation, at last, and better garbage collection. The former is not a problem for D, but the latter…
>
> <probably-a-troll-but-still-worth-saying-that-gc-can-change/>

Indeed a faster garbage collector will be a good selling point for Go.

But Go still doesn't have proper generics, which keeps it light-years behind D in terms of expressivity.

Still time to convince people to use D instead of Go then...

On Monday, 19 June 2017 at 16:13:20 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
> I'd be more bothered by Kotlin native that Scala native.

Thanks, did not even know that Jetbrain is also going for a native LLVM version. It even seems they are in contact with the Scala-native team. Looks like everybody is jumping on the native LLVM compilation bandwagon.

On Mon, 2017-06-19 at 19:17 +0000, Wulfklaue via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Monday, 19 June 2017 at 16:13:20 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
> > I'd be more bothered by Kotlin native that Scala native.
> 
> Thanks, did not even know that Jetbrain is also going for a native LLVM version. It even seems they are in contact with the Scala-native team. Looks like everybody is jumping on the native LLVM compilation bandwagon.

It seems the logical next step for development of IntelliJ IDEA, and all the other IDEs, remove the JVM from the equation. It's an obvious long-term plan.

ACCU 2018.

-- 
Russel. ============================================================================= Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder@ekiga.net 41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: russel@winder.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder

On Mon, 2017-06-19 at 19:07 +0000, Ecstatic Coder via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> […]
> 
> But Go still doesn't have proper generics, which keeps it light-years behind D in terms of expressivity.

Go doesn't have, and likely will never have, generics in the C++, D, Chapel sense, but then Rust doesn't either. Go has two routes for achieving the goal that C++ generics (and hence D and Chapel generics) were intended for. You have to use the idiomatic approach for the language. Saying Go is behind D is missing the point that the languages are different and have to be used differently to achieve the same goal.

> Still time to convince people to use D instead of Go then...

The only way of doing this is to have lots of problems programmed idiomatically in D, Go, Rust, Kotlin, with unbiased compare and contrast notes. You end up finding different languages are best in different problems. Which is hardly a surprise. Generally it is the libraries that are the truly key factors.

And do not underestimate personal choice, different language gel with different people (though there is some Stockholm Syndrome effect with some people).

For me just now, D beats C++ for working with Gtk and GStreamer. For other problems I go with Go, or partake of Python. C++17, or more likely C++20, may make C++ interesting again. I though C++11 had, but in the end it didn't.

-- 
Russel. ============================================================================= Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder@ekiga.net 41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: russel@winder.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder