On 11/5/2013 5:05 AM, Atila Neves wrote:
> - I ran into a dmd bug when I tried to use TaskPool.map with a delegate so I had
> to give up trying that possible optimisation.
>
> - I ran into another dmd bug (it crashed) at one point if -inline was used.

It's very important to file these issues in bugzilla.


> - dub build with LDC and GDC failed miserably. I think it was because of vibe.d.

These too in the dub system.

On Tuesday, 5 November 2013 at 19:57:07 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>> - I ran into another dmd bug (it crashed) at one point if -inline was used.

At least this one will be fixed in 2.064

On Tuesday, November 05, 2013 16:27:39 Jesse Phillips wrote:
> So, is he writing D code now :D. Or did he complain about the syntax, all the types being on the left?

LOL. I doubt that someone who's that big a fan of Go would switch thanks to that (would you have switched to Go if the Go implementation had won?) - especially when Go and D are so dissimilar. In general, I would expect fans of Go to dislike D and fans of D to dislike Go simply because of how very different their designs are. But it _would_ show him that D can compete with Go for performance even in Go's area of expertise.

Go is on the list of languages that I'd like to spend more time becoming familiar with, because I think that it's good to know lots of programming languages, but the more I learn about it, the less I like it. Its design philosophies are just too different from my preferences.

- Jonathan M Davis

On Wednesday, 6 November 2013 at 05:38:54 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> LOL. I doubt that someone who's that big a fan of Go would switch thanks to
> that (would you have switched to Go if the Go implementation had won?) -

Of course not, Go puts the types on the wrong side for me to switch. Had a coworker mention to me that I should look into the philosophy of Go amongst other points (not enough tech talk around). After a little bit of discussion (mostly not around Go) I let him know I was already aware of Go's philosophy and it didn't match my desires. Citing my attempt at Sorting Time[1] as an example. He agreed, lack of generics sucks.

1. http://he-the-great.livejournal.com/49072.html

On Wednesday, November 06, 2013 07:18:43 Jesse Phillips wrote:
> On Wednesday, 6 November 2013 at 05:38:54 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
> 
> wrote:
> > LOL. I doubt that someone who's that big a fan of Go would
> > switch thanks to
> > that (would you have switched to Go if the Go implementation
> > had won?) -
> 
> Of course not, Go puts the types on the wrong side for me to switch. Had a coworker mention to me that I should look into the philosophy of Go amongst other points (not enough tech talk around). After a little bit of discussion (mostly not around Go) I let him know I was already aware of Go's philosophy and it didn't match my desires. Citing my attempt at Sorting Time[1] as an example. He agreed, lack of generics sucks.
> 
> 1. http://he-the-great.livejournal.com/49072.html

Yikes. Sorting time in D is trivial. It would never occur to me that that would be hard.

But I'm so sold on D's way of doing things with ranges and generic code that most any other language is likely to seem worse in comparison.

- Jonathan M Davis

On Wednesday, 6 November 2013 at 05:38:54 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 05, 2013 16:27:39 Jesse Phillips wrote:
>> So, is he writing D code now :D. Or did he complain about the
>> syntax, all the types being on the left?
>
> LOL. I doubt that someone who's that big a fan of Go would switch thanks to
> that (would you have switched to Go if the Go implementation had won?) -
> especially when Go and D are so dissimilar. In general, I would expect fans of
> Go to dislike D and fans of D to dislike Go simply because of how very
> different their designs are. But it _would_ show him that D can compete with Go
> for performance even in Go's area of expertise.
>
> Go is on the list of languages that I'd like to spend more time becoming
> familiar with, because I think that it's good to know lots of programming
> languages, but the more I learn about it, the less I like it. Its design
> philosophies are just too different from my preferences.
>
> - Jonathan M Davis


I rather use D than Go, but it has more to do with Go's community with their religion decisions about generics, dynamic loading, exceptions, enumerations, package management than anything else.

The language follows the Pascal tradition of type declarations and safety before performance dirty tricks. I find quite appealing its Oberon and Alef/Lingo influences.

It is good enough for many cases where people, wrongly, still use C. For example, the complete UNIX user space.

Now for those of us that have become used to the niceties the mainstream languages have adopted from academia in the last 30 years, Go feels a bit too light.

Anyway on my day job, we will not be moving away from JVM/.NET world any time soon.

--
Paulo

On Wednesday, 6 November 2013 at 07:26:42 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
> The language follows the Pascal tradition of type declarations and safety before performance dirty tricks. I find quite appealing its Oberon and Alef/Lingo influences.
>

And still it is not quite safe.

> Anyway on my day job, we will not be moving away from JVM/.NET world any time soon.
>

You may want to look at scala then.

>Go is on the list of languages that I'd like to spend more time becoming familiar with, because I think that it's good to know lots of programming languages, but the more I learn about it, the less I like it. Its design philosophies are just too different from my preferences.

Go IMHO is a modernized C and there is nothing in addition from
what I can see (except CSP). It is what turns out if someone
nowadays did something exactly like C with modern means.

>I rather use D than Go, but it has more to do with Go's community with their religion decisions about generics, dynamic loading,

I spent some time reading postings in the Go user forum. Go is
today what for us earlier was Basic or Pascal. Something very
exciting to get into all this stuff. People seem to be quite
religious about it in the sense that it feels holes of boredom in
your life by getting exciting about a programming language.

> You may want to look at scala then.

Then have a look at this thread in the Scala user forum:
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=de#!topic/scala-user/D9QDOnHSUu8
It is about build times in Scala not scaling up. One reply was
"Do you have very fast SSDs in your computer?". When I read that
I decided only to do a little spare time Scala project and that's
it. Might serve me to find a better Java job one day. D has
immutable objects and pure functions. I rather do D than Scala,
actually ...

Lightweight Threads in Go and Rust

What is a *BIG* plus for Go and Rust are lightweight threads. You
can spawn some thousand of them and it's no problem. I really
wished D had that kind of threads as well. For nowaydays
server-side development where applications need to bear heavy
load and load peaks this is an important thing.

-- Bienlein

>> Anyway on my day job, we will not be moving away from JVM/.NET world any time soon.
>>
>
> You may want to look at scala then.

I fear the language on the JVM in 95% of all cases will be Java.
Sad, but I guess it is true. But it helps to talk about it ...
;-). You might have a look at Kotlin:
http://kotlin.jetbrains.org/ I like it very much: Scala without
the mistakes that were made in Scala. But it will take another
year till Kotlin turns 1.0.

On Wednesday, 6 November 2013 at 07:33:54 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
> On Wednesday, 6 November 2013 at 07:26:42 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
>> The language follows the Pascal tradition of type declarations and safety before performance dirty tricks. I find quite appealing its Oberon and Alef/Lingo influences.
>>
>
> And still it is not quite safe.
>
>> Anyway on my day job, we will not be moving away from JVM/.NET world any time soon.
>>
>
> You may want to look at scala then.

I do know Scala, but my co-workers do not.

When you work in large organizations, you are constrained to what everyone knows.

--
Paulo