You're splitting D.

On Tuesday, 18 May 2021 at 15:26:08 UTC, zjh wrote:

I think C++20 surpasses D in terms of metaprogramming and modelling. Concepts and stackless coroutines does make a difference.

But C++ takes years to master... So there is a high investment of time needed.

One disadvantage is that the D's GC design is a sledgehammer from a time when CPUs had 1 core and kilobytes of memory.

The real disadvantage is that it is taking so much time to get an alternative memory managment strategy. That is primarily because too much effort is spent arguing about @safe.

It would have been better to just require @safe to use GC and let @nogc be @system, because @safe is clearly out of reach on a theoretical level if you don't want a tedious attribute infested coding experience... At least in this decade.

On Tuesday, 18 May 2021 at 15:26:08 UTC, zjh wrote:

Here, TinyGO for the Switch.

https://tinygo.org/docs/reference/microcontrollers/nintendoswitch/

Or statically compiled subsets from Typescript and Python for gaming handhelds.

https://arcade.makecode.com/#

Guess which language kids will prefer, regardless of your opinion on GC?

Your special flavoured no GC D or one of those with GC and shinny hardware?

Those kids are going to be the programmers from tomorrow.

D has many shortcomings. D needs to be reborn.
Need to big open and big close, need to reconstruct, need to BIG CHANGE.
Don't be afraid. Our current D scale is too small, you can change it greatly.
If you are afraid of change, you will lose.
C++20 has been very powerful. D must be greatly changed.
Don't believe those who advocate GC, they are the enemy of D.
When I think about it, I can't imagine that compiling a D library will take up a whole memory,and crash.
Only by doing the best can we be competitive.
.
Only by doing real system programming can there be a way out.
A single spark can start a prairie fire. We can completely change it, just like PY3 and py2.
.
Don't be afraid. If you are afraid, you will lose.(repete 3 times)
PY3, only 3 has a way out. Otherwise, python will die..

On Tuesday, 18 May 2021 at 15:32:07 UTC, zjh wrote:

no, no i'm not.
people who want to get rid of the GC are the ones who want to split the language (and i'm not against it, but don't force it on D).
gc and nogc can happily coexist in the current D language.

On Tuesday, 18 May 2021 at 16:02:10 UTC, zjh wrote:

if you want D to be reborn, again, what is stopping you?
dmd is boost licensed. go ahead.
people who spend their free time developing D and are happy with a GC will probably not rip out the GC just because you don't like the GC.

On Tuesday, 18 May 2021 at 16:20:53 UTC, Zoadian wrote:

Folks lets dont fight over GC vs no-GC. Its a futile fight. We need both. Infact GC is the right approach for the majority of the cases IMHO. This post was mainly asking the core developers about the roadmap.
a. can we make language more secure and memory safe(like rust) with and without GC.
b. can D without GC use hashmaps, stdlib and other libraries. Libraries can be used with or without GC. Is it technically possible.

On Tuesday, 18 May 2021 at 16:32:01 UTC, dogman wrote:

With, obviously. Without, only if add RC, but RC without ARC is not going to be popular. You cannot have safe borrowing like Rust without tedium. Anyway, the real problem is having to do RC eveywhere on the heap, because proving anything about pointers on the heap is a HARD problem. So unless you want everything to be an acyclic tree datastuctures, you will then be forced to use RC for backpointers, which is moronic!

So, no, the theoretical knowledge is not where it has to be to write efficient safe code. It is not possible, in the general case, as of today.

The problem is, what about cleanup? D does not have fully precise collection.
Destuctors on the GC heap cannot follow pointers to GC objects safely...

On Tuesday, 18 May 2021 at 15:32:07 UTC, zjh wrote:

Actually, it seems like a great idea. I would like it if D was split into D proper (with GC) and DasBetterC (with "return scope" or whatever it is). I mean split for real, more than currently is the case. Then just remove @nogc from D.

On Thursday, 13 May 2021 at 20:57:13 UTC, dogman wrote:

D is already pretty memory safe. Not sure how D lacks in that department to the point that it's become a problem. Plus it's not like that the only thing worth looking at or priority No. 1 for that matter.

D can already be used just like any other language can. Anyone who can't use D for any of such use cases it problem the problem itself. Of course, all language require certain compromises to work in certain environment and D is not different.

The working group is for maintaining the language. Web framework etc. is not an issue or limitation of D. By the way, what king of web framework or web functionality cannot be done in current D? we got vibe.d, hunt, arsd CGI, etc.

They've done quite a bit of marketing in the past. By the way, many other companies are using D partially or exclusively (https://dlang.org/orgs-using-d.html). The fastest file system isn't written in PHP yet it's quite popular. Why is that so? Why do a lot of people use PHP that much?

Moot.