https://z0ltan.wordpress.com/2017/02/21/goodbye-rust-and-hello-d/

On Tuesday, 7 March 2017 at 03:04:05 UTC, Joakim wrote:
> https://z0ltan.wordpress.com/2017/02/21/goodbye-rust-and-hello-d/

"A much much safer language than C++ while being much more programmer-friendly than Rust."

Nice quote. :)

I somewhat wonder about "Arrays (arguably the most important data structure) are actually sane, consistent, and very much logically intuitive in D unlike the mess that’s C (and C++)." At some points, people get bitten by the determinism issue [0]. Probably, z0ltan was lucky so far. Nevertheless, arrays/slices are the way they are for good reasons.

[0] https://dlang.org/d-array-article.html

On Tuesday, 7 March 2017 at 09:54:36 UTC, qznc wrote:
> I somewhat wonder about "Arrays (arguably the most important data structure) are actually sane, consistent, and very much logically intuitive in D unlike the mess that’s C (and C++)." At some points, people get bitten by the determinism issue

On the contrary, he does mention D's safety and memory management different from Rust, C and C++ as a good point for him actually.

Every thread ends up in the same discussion :p and is GC really so bad in all and every case?

On Tuesday, 7 March 2017 at 09:54:36 UTC, qznc wrote:

> I somewhat wonder about "Arrays (arguably the most important data structure) are actually sane, consistent, and very much logically intuitive in D unlike the mess that’s C (and C++)." At some points, people get bitten by the determinism issue [0]. Probably, z0ltan was lucky so far. Nevertheless, arrays/slices are the way they are for good reasons.
>
> [0] https://dlang.org/d-array-article.html

D's arrays are sane, consistent, and logically intuitive even accounting for the "determinism issue". I've never understood why this behavior is surprising - it's exactly what I'd expect. But then I don't program in a way that it's relevant, so maybe I don't understand how it matters.

On Tuesday, 7 March 2017 at 03:04:05 UTC, Joakim wrote:
> https://z0ltan.wordpress.com/2017/02/21/goodbye-rust-and-hello-d/

I like the bit in the comments where he says this:

"It doesn’t have to be idiomatic to work just fine, which is relaxing."

People often don't get how nice this is.

-Wyatt

On Tuesday, 7 March 2017 at 12:53:42 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
> D's arrays are sane, consistent, and logically intuitive even accounting for the "determinism issue". I've never understood why this behavior is surprising - it's exactly what I'd expect. But then I don't program in a way that it's relevant, so maybe I don't understand how it matters.

It is horrible. It is something you only would expect from a hacky scripting language. No ifs or buts.

On Tuesday, 7 March 2017 at 17:52:23 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
> On Tuesday, 7 March 2017 at 12:53:42 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
>> D's arrays are sane, consistent, and logically intuitive even accounting for the "determinism issue". I've never understood why this behavior is surprising - it's exactly what I'd expect. But then I don't program in a way that it's relevant, so maybe I don't understand how it matters.
>
> It is horrible. It is something you only would expect from a hacky scripting language. No ifs or buts.

What exactly are we talking about here? The array stomping protection stuff?

On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 05:52:23PM +0000, Ola Fosheim Grøstad via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Tuesday, 7 March 2017 at 12:53:42 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
> > D's arrays are sane, consistent, and logically intuitive even accounting for the "determinism issue". I've never understood why this behavior is surprising - it's exactly what I'd expect. But then I don't program in a way that it's relevant, so maybe I don't understand how it matters.
> 
> It is horrible. It is something you only would expect from a hacky scripting language. No ifs or buts.

That's an opinion.

Like bachmeier, I have found D arrays (well, slices) to be exactly how I expect arrays to work. The "determinism issue" is really only a problem in exceptional cases where you probably should be using a custom type instead. Or in cases where you're worried about performance and therefore have to understand the nitty-gritty of exactly how slices work in all possible cases -- something that you already have to learn in the first place, if performance is a concern.  I love D arrays, warts and all.


T

-- 
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell. "How come he didn't put 'I think' at the end of it?" -- Anonymous

On Tuesday, 7 March 2017 at 17:59:28 UTC, Meta wrote:
> What exactly are we talking about here? The array stomping protection stuff?

Lack of static guarantees on the underlying array buffer.

On Tuesday, 7 March 2017 at 18:19:47 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
> On Tuesday, 7 March 2017 at 17:59:28 UTC, Meta wrote:
>> What exactly are we talking about here? The array stomping protection stuff?
>
> Lack of static guarantees on the underlying array buffer.

Like with pointers, ownership doesn't have to be encoded in the type this way.