September 23, 2014 Re: What are the worst parts of D? | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Andrei Alexandrescu | Andrei Alexandrescu:
> * C++ compatibility
> * Everything GC-related
>
> Probably a distant third is improving build tooling. But those two are more important that everything else by an order of magnitude.
In parallel there are other things like ddmd, checked ints in core library, perhaps to finish shared libs, to test the patch from Kenji that fixes the module system, and more.
Bye,
bearophile
|
September 23, 2014 Re: What are the worst parts of D? | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Paolo Invernizzi | On 9/23/14, 9:40 AM, Paolo Invernizzi wrote:
> I'm starting to think that there will be a lot of buzz and fuss about D
> as soon as good bindings to popular C++ libs will appear in the wild...
Yah, and core.stdcpp will be quite the surprise. -- Andrei
|
September 23, 2014 Re: What are the worst parts of D? | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Andrei Alexandrescu | On Tuesday, 23 September 2014 at 16:50:26 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 9/23/14, 9:40 AM, Paolo Invernizzi wrote:
>> I'm starting to think that there will be a lot of buzz and fuss about D
>> as soon as good bindings to popular C++ libs will appear in the wild...
>
> Yah, and core.stdcpp will be quite the surprise. -- Andrei
Really?? Wow. Awesome!
Atila
|
September 23, 2014 Re: What are the worst parts of D? | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Sean Kelly | On Tuesday, 23 September 2014 at 14:29:06 UTC, Sean Kelly wrote:
> […] and a lack of attention paid to tightening up what we've already got and deprecating old stuff that no one wants any more.
This. The hypocritical fear of making breaking changes (the fact that not all of them are bad has been brought up over and over again by some of the corporate users) is crippling us, making D a much more cluttered language than necessary.
Seriously, once somebody comes up with an automatic fixup tool, there is hardly any generic argument left against language changes. Sure, there will always be some cases where manual intervention is still required, such as with string mixins. But unless we have lost hope that the D community is still to grow significantly, I don't see why the burden of proof should automatically lie on the side of those in favor of cleaning up cruft and semantical quirks.
Most D code is still to be written.
David
|
September 23, 2014 Re: What are the worst parts of D? | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Sean Kelly Attachments: | On Tue, 23 Sep 2014 14:29:05 +0000
Sean Kelly via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
> function attributes. I'm sure someone likes them, but I'm drowning in pure system const immutable @nogc @illegitemate @wtf hell.
and 'const' is such overpowered that it's barely usable on methods and struct/class fields.
|
September 23, 2014 Re: What are the worst parts of D? | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to David Nadlinger Attachments: | On Tue, 23 Sep 2014 18:32:39 +0000
David Nadlinger via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
> Seriously, once somebody comes up with an automatic fixup tool,
i bet nobody will. for many various reasons.
|
September 23, 2014 Re: What are the worst parts of D? | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to David Nadlinger | On 9/23/14, 11:32 AM, David Nadlinger wrote:
> On Tuesday, 23 September 2014 at 14:29:06 UTC, Sean Kelly wrote:
>> […] and a lack of attention paid to tightening up what we've already
>> got and deprecating old stuff that no one wants any more.
>
> This. The hypocritical fear of making breaking changes (the fact that
> not all of them are bad has been brought up over and over again by some
> of the corporate users) is crippling us, making D a much more cluttered
> language than necessary.
>
> Seriously, once somebody comes up with an automatic fixup tool, there is
> hardly any generic argument left against language changes. Sure, there
> will always be some cases where manual intervention is still required,
> such as with string mixins. But unless we have lost hope that the D
> community is still to grow significantly, I don't see why the burden of
> proof should automatically lie on the side of those in favor of cleaning
> up cruft and semantical quirks.
>
> Most D code is still to be written.
Well put. Again, the two things we need to work on are C++ compatibility and the GC. -- Andrei
|
September 23, 2014 Re: What are the worst parts of D? | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Andrei Alexandrescu | On Tuesday, 23 September 2014 at 18:38:08 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>
> Well put. Again, the two things we need to work on are C++ compatibility and the GC. -- Andrei
Has much thought gone into how we'll address C++ const?
|
September 23, 2014 Re: What are the worst parts of D? | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Sean Kelly | On 9/23/14, 12:01 PM, Sean Kelly wrote:
> On Tuesday, 23 September 2014 at 18:38:08 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>
>> Well put. Again, the two things we need to work on are C++
>> compatibility and the GC. -- Andrei
>
> Has much thought gone into how we'll address C++ const?
Some. A lot more needs to. -- Andrei
|
September 23, 2014 Re: What are the worst parts of D? | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Sean Kelly | On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 07:01:05PM +0000, Sean Kelly via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On Tuesday, 23 September 2014 at 18:38:08 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: > > > >Well put. Again, the two things we need to work on are C++ compatibility and the GC. -- Andrei > > Has much thought gone into how we'll address C++ const? Is that even addressable?? D const is fundamentally different from C++ const. Short of introducing logical const into D, I don't see how we could bridge the gap. T -- It is the quality rather than the quantity that matters. -- Lucius Annaeus Seneca |
Copyright © 1999-2021 by the D Language Foundation