On Tuesday, 5 October 2021 at 20:12:07 UTC, Guillaume Piolat wrote:
>On Monday, 4 October 2021 at 23:10:27 UTC, Tejas wrote:
>Even the d-idioms website doesn't have much.
Any text sources would be really appreciated.
Thank you for reading!
The construction of the allocator library in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIb3L4vKZ7U is really quite the lesson.
Also "Functional image processing in D": https://blog.cy.md/2014/03/21/functional-image-processing-in-d/
With all the good thing that can be said about DbI, I don't think it is a defining feature of D. After using ae.utils.graphics for years, I turned 180° and now think generic programming typically get a few problems:
- it's a bit remote from problem domains, meaning a bit less readable code, a bit harder to write, a bit longer to compile... in exchange for the expanded capabilities and genericity
- the problem of having less specific identifiers
- the problem of typically having poor information-hiding. Probably the idea was that the software artifact is so generic, it has to be made public. Leading to too much being public.
So apart from the plasticity that others mention, why do you feel D is better than the alternatives out there for your field of work?
Why do you continue to walk the path less travelled when others enjoy the advantages of mainstream languages like better tooling and greater stability, ie, fewer/no breaking changes with each release(and disadvantages like various janky workarounds for backwards compatibility, deigns/ideological constraints, etc)?