On Friday, 8 October 2021 at 16:37:51 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
> On 10/8/21 2:53 AM, Arjan wrote:
>
> >  From my experience:
> >
> > Use case: replacing 2 executables with one written in D in a
> system
> > consisting of multiple executables all written in C++ using
> various
> > libraries and a proprietary bus system originally designed
> and build in
> > 2004.
>
> Are you sure it worked? Because Bjarne thinks "it doesn't work". ;)
>
>   https://youtu.be/ae6nFZn3auQ?t=2228
>

Thanks for the links. Interesting but I do not concur with those statements of Bjarne.

Multiple times it has been proven already to be FUD. The chances of success has not so much to do with the languages from to, but much more on the approach, the availability of verification devices etc.
Also here in this forum multiple times has been reported great success with transitioning to D from other languages.

What make D interesting imo is that it is very broad in fit for purpose. This is were it hugely is distinct from any other language i'm aware of.

On 10/11/21 5:21 AM, Arjan wrote:

>> Are you sure it worked? Because Bjarne thinks "it doesn't work". ;)
>>
>>   https://youtu.be/ae6nFZn3auQ?t=2228

> Thanks for the links. Interesting but I do not concur with those
> statements of Bjarne.

Neither do I. My sarcastic winky was too subtle? :)

There is something fishy when a professor discourages new language design and especially one who acts as if D and other languages don't exist.

Ali

On Sun, Oct 10, 2021 at 09:54:11AM +0000, Ki Rill via Digitalmars-d wrote: [...]
> D is all about choice.
> 
> Many people feel frustrated with D: @safe, @live, @nogc, betterC, etc - what/when to use? They ultimately feel lost. But it's not a language thing.
> 
> D lets the programmer make the choices and helps him stay true to what he has chosen. D is like C - it trusts the programmer, but it also has the necessary mechanisms to ensure that the programmer does not stray from the path chosen.
> 
> Want to avoid the GC? Put @nogc at the top of your file. Do you want your code to be safe? @safe - is the way to go. Such mechanisms ensure you don't get lazy and start using the features you set to avoid.
> 
> Unlike Rust, D does not enforce anything upon the programmer. There is no path, schema, plan. You are your own boss. You decide.
> 
> D is all about choice. Every time we start a new project, we need to decide what D subset to use. I find D similar to Gentoo philosophy-wise. Systemd vs OpenRC? Etc.
> 
> I believe we need to somehow communicate this to the public to clarify all this confusion involved with D features.

+1, one of the things that drew me to D was the choices. It doesn't try to shove some idealogy down my throat, but gives me the tools to achieve what I want.  Unlike some people here, I find that having more than one way to do something is a *good* thing. (When the choices are meaningful, that is. When there are multiple ways of doing something but the choices are not meaningful, that's a different question.)


T

-- 
"I'm not childish; I'm just in touch with the child within!" - RL

On Tuesday, 12 October 2021 at 16:51:40 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> Unlike some people here, I find that having more than one way to do something is a *good* thing. (When the choices are meaningful, that is. When there are multiple ways of doing something but the choices are not meaningful, that's a different question.)

It is not good when you have to read code written by others. Especially if it rarely used. (We can easily deal with "i++" and "i=i+1" because they occur frequently.)

However, with meta-programming, people will write libraries that create N ways of doing the same thing. So not only do you need discipline when doing language design, but also when designing or choosing libraries, if you want to encourage people to write more readable code. Powerful meta-programming features like D/C++ provide also has some negative consequences.

For larger long-lived programs, readable code often is on of the most important characteristic (in term of costs). In that regard, it might be desirable to use a language that is restrictive, but is geared towards the domain.

I think the most well designed languages are designed for a specific use context, and  that context guides the "values". Languages like D and C++ (and JavaScript) has not been designed for a specific context and the end result is a bit messy as a result. I am not sure if one can separate values and intended use context...