Yet another shallow language comparison that needs to be corrected:

https://www.quora.com/Which-language-has-the-brightest-future-in-replacement-of-C-between-D-Go-and-Rust-And-Why/answer/Matej-%C4%BDach?srid=itC4&share=1

On Monday, 9 November 2015 at 14:13:45 UTC, Nordlöw wrote:
> Yet another shallow language comparison that needs to be corrected:
>
> https://www.quora.com/Which-language-has-the-brightest-future-in-replacement-of-C-between-D-Go-and-Rust-And-Why/answer/Matej-%C4%BDach?srid=itC4&share=1

He should advertise his bias in this considering he appears to be a Rust developer/contributor, it would be like asking Walter or Andrei why they use D.

On Monday, 9 November 2015 at 14:13:45 UTC, Nordlöw wrote:
> Yet another shallow language comparison that needs to be corrected:
>
> https://www.quora.com/Which-language-has-the-brightest-future-in-replacement-of-C-between-D-Go-and-Rust-And-Why/answer/Matej-%C4%BDach?srid=itC4&share=1

Besides the author's obvious bias, the only thing in there that is factually wrong is his statement that Rust provides the same modeling power as C++ (lack of OOP). But other than that, nothing really jumps out at me as being plain incorrect.

On Monday, 9 November 2015 at 15:29:44 UTC, Jack Stouffer wrote:
> On Monday, 9 November 2015 at 14:13:45 UTC, Nordlöw wrote:
>> Yet another shallow language comparison that needs to be corrected:
>>
>> https://www.quora.com/Which-language-has-the-brightest-future-in-replacement-of-C-between-D-Go-and-Rust-And-Why/answer/Matej-%C4%BDach?srid=itC4&share=1
>
> Besides the author's obvious bias, the only thing in there that is factually wrong is his statement that Rust provides the same modeling power as C++ (lack of OOP). But other than that, nothing really jumps out at me as being plain incorrect.

I'd argue the familiarity part of Rust. I could put a C or C++ programmer down in a chair and have them using Go or D in an hour or two, I don't think the same can be said of Rust - especially when you consider lifetime annotations. Which comes back to the "Doesn't offer clear tradeoffs" — Rust has a clear tradeoff in that it requires far more from the programmer, IMO.

On Monday, 9 November 2015 at 14:13:45 UTC, Nordlöw wrote:
> Yet another shallow language comparison that needs to be corrected:
>
> https://www.quora.com/Which-language-has-the-brightest-future-in-replacement-of-C-between-D-Go-and-Rust-And-Why/answer/Matej-%C4%BDach?srid=itC4&share=1

> It doesn't require tradeoffs - It is somewhat of a tradition for a new language to come in > and proclaim itself as a "C replacement", only for the programmers to discover that it isn't really.

This is incorrect. You have to get used to the friction and rules the borrow checker introduces. Even if you get used to it, the learning curve is a bit higher. This is a trade off and an important one. Mean while in D, I can copy and paste a lot of C, C++ and even C# and Java code and it for the most part works with only minor tweaks here and there to adjust for the differences.

On Monday, 9 November 2015 at 15:29:44 UTC, Jack Stouffer wrote:
> On Monday, 9 November 2015 at 14:13:45 UTC, Nordlöw wrote:
>> Yet another shallow language comparison that needs to be corrected:
>>
>> https://www.quora.com/Which-language-has-the-brightest-future-in-replacement-of-C-between-D-Go-and-Rust-And-Why/answer/Matej-%C4%BDach?srid=itC4&share=1
>
> Besides the author's obvious bias, the only thing in there that is factually wrong is his statement that Rust provides the same modeling power as C++ (lack of OOP). But other than that, nothing really jumps out at me as being plain incorrect.

There is plenty wrong with it. For instance, he mention that C++ and D are not attractive coming from C because of the complexity, but somehow this doesn't apply to Rust. The claim is so ludicrous I have hard time to believe that one can make it seriously.

Rust is way more complex than C. It's not even close.

On Monday, 9 November 2015 at 15:29:44 UTC, Jack Stouffer wrote:
> modeling power as C++ (lack of OOP). But other than that, nothing really jumps out at me as being plain incorrect.

Right, but in order to compete with C, you need a language that translates well into C. Way too many targets and legacy code for a single compiler. So I don't see any competitive languages on the horizon...

On 11/09/2015 09:13 AM, Nordlöw wrote:
> Yet another shallow language comparison that needs to be corrected:
>
> https://www.quora.com/Which-language-has-the-brightest-future-in-replacement-of-C-between-D-Go-and-Rust-And-Why/answer/Matej-%C4%BDach?srid=itC4&share=1

My response: https://goo.gl/VTEYFk -- Andrei

On Monday, 9 November 2015 at 21:01:29 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 11/09/2015 09:13 AM, Nordlöw wrote:
>> Yet another shallow language comparison that needs to be corrected:
>>
>> https://www.quora.com/Which-language-has-the-brightest-future-in-replacement-of-C-between-D-Go-and-Rust-And-Why/answer/Matej-%C4%BDach?srid=itC4&share=1
>
> My response: https://goo.gl/VTEYFk -- Andrei

Great post, though languages that compile to C (e.g. Nim) are probably even better at interfacing with C/C++ than D. I'm sure D is #1 aside those though.

On Monday, 9 November 2015 at 23:11:34 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
> On Monday, 9 November 2015 at 21:01:29 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> On 11/09/2015 09:13 AM, Nordlöw wrote:
>>> Yet another shallow language comparison that needs to be corrected:
>>>
>>> https://www.quora.com/Which-language-has-the-brightest-future-in-replacement-of-C-between-D-Go-and-Rust-And-Why/answer/Matej-%C4%BDach?srid=itC4&share=1
>>
>> My response: https://goo.gl/VTEYFk -- Andrei
>
> Great post, though languages that compile to C (e.g. Nim) are probably even better at interfacing with C/C++ than D. I'm sure D is #1 aside those though.

IMO D gets a plus here for being so C-like which makes interfacing with C a more enjoyable experience. It's very easy to write D in an "improved C" way.