<<Originally sent to wrong list, sorry if this appears a cross-posting.>>

Given that the entire C++ standards committee will be at ACCU 2013, I've decided to do a lightning talk on why D and Go are better tools for any native coding problem than C++.

	pigeon[500] pigeons;
	pigeons[random(500)] = new cat;

:-)
-- 
Russel. ============================================================================= Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder@ekiga.net 41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: russel@winder.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder

On 4/8/13 10:22 AM, Russel Winder wrote:
> <<Originally sent to wrong list, sorry if this appears a cross-posting.>>
>
> Given that the entire C++ standards committee will be at ACCU 2013, I've
> decided to do a lightning talk on why D and Go are better tools for any
> native coding problem than C++.
>
> 	pigeon[500] pigeons;
> 	pigeons[random(500)] = new cat;
>
> :-)

This is great. Let us know how we can support you.

It would be interesting to hear how your argument for Go addresses its tenuous interface with C, pervasive indirect calls, and compulsive use of GC.


Andrei

On Monday, 8 April 2013 at 14:22:54 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
> <<Originally sent to wrong list, sorry if this appears a cross-posting.>>
>
> Given that the entire C++ standards committee will be at ACCU 2013, I've
> decided to do a lightning talk on why D and Go are better tools for any
> native coding problem than C++.
>
> 	pigeon[500] pigeons;
> 	pigeons[random(500)] = new cat;
>
> :-)

 Go better than C++ for Games ?  Keeep dreaming buddy!

I like D but half of what makes a language useful are tools/IDE's etc, and D is just not comparable to C++ yet on this front.

Am 08.04.2013 23:05, schrieb GoSucksButt:
> On Monday, 8 April 2013 at 14:22:54 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
>> <<Originally sent to wrong list, sorry if this appears a cross-posting.>>
>>
>> Given that the entire C++ standards committee will be at ACCU 2013, I've
>> decided to do a lightning talk on why D and Go are better tools for any
>> native coding problem than C++.
>>
>>     pigeon[500] pigeons;
>>     pigeons[random(500)] = new cat;
>>
>> :-)
>
>   Go better than C++ for Games ?  Keeep dreaming buddy!

Not all games need to be the next Crysis.

>
> I like D but half of what makes a language useful are tools/IDE's etc,
> and D is just not comparable to C++ yet on this front.

If that was a major issue then what to say about C++ tooling when compared to what Delphi/Java/C# offer.

--
Paulo

Am 08.04.2013 18:11, schrieb Andrei Alexandrescu:
> On 4/8/13 10:22 AM, Russel Winder wrote:
>> <<Originally sent to wrong list, sorry if this appears a cross-posting.>>
>>
>> Given that the entire C++ standards committee will be at ACCU 2013, I've
>> decided to do a lightning talk on why D and Go are better tools for any
>> native coding problem than C++.
>>
>>     pigeon[500] pigeons;
>>     pigeons[random(500)] = new cat;
>>
>> :-)
>
> This is great. Let us know how we can support you.
>
> It would be interesting to hear how your argument for Go addresses its
> tenuous interface with C, pervasive indirect calls, and compulsive use
> of GC.
>
>
> Andrei

Lets not forget the lack of generics, the religious view against dynamic linking and errors for unused variables and imports.

>>  Go better than C++ for Games ?  Keeep dreaming buddy!
>
> Not all games need to be the next Crysis.

 Yes but you are forgetting, Go Sucks Butt! Shitty language all around, even if C++ wasn't so much faster, still no reason to use Go. For the performance it offers(Crap), you could use LuaJIT for a far more enjoyable time(and it has coroutines just like Go, and probably runs faster).


>> I like D but half of what makes a language useful are tools/IDE's etc,
>> and D is just not comparable to C++ yet on this front.
>
> If that was a major issue then what to say about C++ tooling when compared to what Delphi/Java/C# offer.

 Visual Studio + Visual Assist for C++ is not far off from C#, remaining issue is mostly compilation speed which is the fault of the monkeys on the C++ committee not seeming to care enough about this issue(not a priority for C++14 wtf??)

On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 23:51:12 +0200
Paulo Pinto <pjmlp@progtools.org> wrote:
> 
> ...[Go's] religious view against dynamic linking...
> 

And that's despite Google's other product, Android, expecting certain things to be linked dynamically - a bit of corporate schizophrenia which I find rather amusing. :)

On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 23:47:56 +0200
Paulo Pinto <pjmlp@progtools.org> wrote:

> Am 08.04.2013 23:05, schrieb GoSucksButt:
> >
> >   Go better than C++ for Games ?  Keeep dreaming buddy!
> 
> Not all games need to be the next Crysis.
> 

And not all games would *want* to ;)  I've always liked FPSes, but when
I tried Crysis 2 (and the MP beta of Crysis 3), I didn't see what the
big deal was. Not that it was bad or anything, but just "meh". And
that's referring to both gameplay and graphics. Sure, it was
pushing a metric assload of pixels and polys, but it still looked like
any other non-indie title out there (except a bit more "pixeley" - as if
the mip-mapping was biased too much towards the "detailed" end).
Ultimately, good graphics have always been about art direction, not
rendering throughput, and good games are about gameplay, not how closely
your studio can imitate ILM or Pixar or [insert name of your favorite
novelist].

Of course, I do still completely agree with the importance of soft-realtime-processing issues in games. No gameplay or art direction is going to sufficiently compensate for choppy or stuttery animation.

OTOH, sometimes you can get away with more than you'd think:
PSN's "Sound Shapes" seems to be doing pretty well (at least my brother
and I enjoy it quite a bit and the online community is active), and
yet that has very clear GC-stalls now and then. Or at least something
that feels a lot like a GC stall. It only lasts for maybe 100-500ms,
and only every few minutes of gameplay, so while it's ugly, it doesn't
end up being a game-breaker.

Just my random thoughts on the matter ;)

On Monday, 8 April 2013 at 21:51:11 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
> Am 08.04.2013 18:11, schrieb Andrei Alexandrescu:
>> On 4/8/13 10:22 AM, Russel Winder wrote:
>>> <<Originally sent to wrong list, sorry if this appears a cross-posting.>>
>>>
>>> Given that the entire C++ standards committee will be at ACCU 2013, I've
>>> decided to do a lightning talk on why D and Go are better tools for any
>>> native coding problem than C++.
>>>
>>>    pigeon[500] pigeons;
>>>    pigeons[random(500)] = new cat;
>>>
>>> :-)
>>
>> This is great. Let us know how we can support you.
>>
>> It would be interesting to hear how your argument for Go addresses its
>> tenuous interface with C, pervasive indirect calls, and compulsive use
>> of GC.
>>
>>
>> Andrei
>
> Lets not forget the lack of generics, the religious view against dynamic linking and errors for unused variables and imports.

The error for unrecheable statement is really of the same kind.

On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 06:55:39PM -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 23:51:12 +0200
> Paulo Pinto <pjmlp@progtools.org> wrote:
> > 
> > ...[Go's] religious view against dynamic linking...
> > 
> 
> And that's despite Google's other product, Android, expecting certain things to be linked dynamically - a bit of corporate schizophrenia which I find rather amusing. :)
[...]

Corporate schizophrenia is not all that rare. In fact, any corporation of sufficiently large size often exhibits such symptoms, IME.  The view of corporations as single, coherent entities is one I've always been skeptical of.

Be that as it may, upon my latest update of git HEAD of dmd / druntime / phobos, I noticed the beginnings of dynamic linking in Phobos. I haven't tested how well this works with 3rd party D dynamic libraries yet, but this is a wonderful step forward! I'm looking forward to full dynamic library support in D in the near future!!


T

-- 
Real Programmers use "cat > a.out".