On Tuesday, 19 December 2017 at 09:54:05 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> "C, Python, Go, and the Generalized Greenspun Law"
>
> http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=7804

So .. and this is more of a question, to the maintainers and creators of D, what does this mean for D, what is the road map for D

- More support for GC free programming or
- More commitment to the GC
- Something else

It would be nice to hear from the creators of D, what is their vision for future development and enhancement

On Monday, 1 January 2018 at 05:29:06 UTC, Ali wrote:
> On Tuesday, 19 December 2017 at 09:54:05 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>> "C, Python, Go, and the Generalized Greenspun Law"
>>
>> http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=7804
>
> So .. and this is more of a question, to the maintainers and creators of D, what does this mean for D, what is the road map for D
>
> - More support for GC free programming or
> - More commitment to the GC
> - Something else
>
> It would be nice to hear from the creators of D, what is their vision for future development and enhancement

https://wiki.dlang.org/Vision/2017H2

On Tuesday, 19 December 2017 at 09:54:05 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> "C, Python, Go, and the Generalized Greenspun Law"
>
> http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=7804

I would simply add that the strongest vocalizations come from those with objections. The silent majority that is perfectly okay with GC and gets huge development complexity reductions thanks to it rarely spare the energy to argue againts the constant GC complaints.

On Tuesday, January 02, 2018 00:34:57 Nerve via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Tuesday, 19 December 2017 at 09:54:05 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> > "C, Python, Go, and the Generalized Greenspun Law"
> >
> > http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=7804
>
> I would simply add that the strongest vocalizations come from those with objections. The silent majority that is perfectly okay with GC and gets huge development complexity reductions thanks to it rarely spare the energy to argue againts the constant GC complaints.

+1

- Jonathan M Davis

On Tuesday, 2 January 2018 at 00:34:57 UTC, Nerve wrote:
>
> I would simply add that the strongest vocalizations come from those with objections. The silent majority that is perfectly okay with GC and gets huge development complexity reductions thanks to it rarely spare the energy to argue againts the constant GC complaints.

Well, consider the silent 'minority' too, who still think that increasing performance, and reducing demands on resources, still matter, a lot, and that we shouldn't just surrender this just to make programmers more 'productive' (i.e so they can ship slower GC code, more quickly).

Or are you saying there is no overhead associated with GC?
Or if there is, are you saying it never matters..ever?

Or are you saying GC does not impose extra demand on resources?
Or if it does, are you saying it never matters..ever?

What it really comes down to though, is language designers ensuring that any language that defines itself as a 'modern systems programming language', gives control 'to the programmer', and not the other way around.

We've had over a decade of this crazy unconstrained growth in bloat (slower code, and more of it), in the world of software developement. So, perhaps we should start paying more attention to the vocal minority.

On Tuesday, 2 January 2018 at 04:43:42 UTC, codephantom wrote:
> Well, consider the silent 'minority' too, who still think that increasing performance, and reducing demands on resources, still matter, a lot, and that we shouldn't just surrender this just to make programmers more 'productive' (i.e so they can ship slower GC code, more quickly).

I think most of the people in this minority (which actually I think was a majority a few years back) has given up on D as a production language.  I am certainly in that group.  It is starting to be a bit late to change direction now IMO. I mean, it is still possible, but that would require a mentality shift, which has been surprisingly difficult to establish.

Given the increased availability of memory in computers I think an application language with built in compiler-supported arena allocator will be a big win, but the only mainstream language that is going for this seems to be Golang. (Go is an application language, not a systems language).


> What it really comes down to though, is language designers ensuring that any language that defines itself as a 'modern systems programming language', gives control 'to the programmer', and not the other way around.

Right now, I think only C++ and Rust fits the "modern system programming" description… GC and refcounting is for application level programming, so it shouldn't even be on the table as a core solution for that domain.

But D seems to be content with application level programming and that's ok too, but a bit misleading if you also say that you aim to be the best language for low level programming… I don't really think it is possible to be good at both without a massive budget.

You have to pick what you want to be good at. And that is the main problem with the evolution of D; a lack of commitment to a specific niche.

On Tuesday, 2 January 2018 at 01:07:21 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 02, 2018 00:34:57 Nerve via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 19 December 2017 at 09:54:05 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>> > "C, Python, Go, and the Generalized Greenspun Law"
>> >
>> > http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=7804
>>
>> I would simply add that the strongest vocalizations come from those with objections. The silent majority that is perfectly okay with GC and gets huge development complexity reductions thanks to it rarely spare the energy to argue againts the constant GC complaints.
>
> +1
>
> - Jonathan M Davis

Really, would you expect that the strongest vocalizations should come from those with no objections ? (save for ESR's rant ? ). No need to answer.

On Tuesday, 2 January 2018 at 11:53:38 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
>
> You have to pick what you want to be good at. And that is the main problem with the evolution of D; a lack of commitment to a specific niche.

It has multiple personalities, but unlike C++ all of them are discordant with each other. Perhape's Alexandrescu's remark [1] that D suffer from a historical lack of vision is true on more than one sense. Still, D is close ..

[1] https://www.quora.com/Which-language-has-the-brightest-future-in-replacement-of-C-between-D-Go-and-Rust-And-Why

Why would someone choose to use a language with a Garbage Collector and then complain that the language has a Garbage Collector?

On Wednesday, 3 January 2018 at 19:42:28 UTC, Tony wrote:
> Why would someone choose to use a language with a Garbage Collector and then complain that the language has a Garbage Collector?

People always complain about garbage collectors that freeze up the process. Irrespective of the language. It's the antithesis of low level programming…