December 31, 2020
On Thursday, 31 December 2020 at 07:17:45 UTC, RSY wrote:
> It's like the story with the GC
>
> You want everyone to like D because it has a GC despite it being not updated in ages, and proved to not scale well

Fun fact: the c++ GC Oilpan ( used in Chrome ) has more features than the one in D...

December 31, 2020
On Thursday, 31 December 2020 at 07:32:31 UTC, RSY wrote:
> Sorry for the spam, but this is because of people like him that people like me (i discovered D recently) that can't be aware of why D is a great language
>
> They diminish all arguments that makes D better than alternatives
>
>
> You guys have to help me fight that kind of behavior, because it doesn't help D, as if it was their goal, do they want to make sure D doesn't eat specific market share, so some other language can? fishy fishy

I have found that these kinds of language wars often get nowhere. Just use D and be happy and let others use C++ and let them be happy. But they should be aware that C++ *as a language* has a long way to go before it gets all the features etc that D has. Maybe 2023, maybe 2027, who knows. Maybe that's fine for them, but not for me.
December 31, 2020
On Thursday, 31 December 2020 at 09:57:01 UTC, Imperatorn wrote:
> On Thursday, 31 December 2020 at 07:32:31 UTC, RSY wrote: nowhere. Just use D and be happy and let others use C++ and let them be happy. But they should be aware that C++ *as a language* has a long way to go before it gets all the features etc that D has. Maybe 2023, maybe 2027, who knows. Maybe that's fine for them, but not for me.

Which features are you most concerned about? I think the feature set is quite similar. D is less verbose and is easier to use for high level programming, but the clang++ and g++ have fewer bugs and quirks than the D compilers. The biggest difference is that C++ cannot change much, but D can!  D really ought to make more of that advantage... More streamlining even if it breaks stuff.


December 31, 2020
On Thursday, 31 December 2020 at 09:57:01 UTC, Imperatorn wrote:
> On Thursday, 31 December 2020 at 07:32:31 UTC, RSY wrote:
>> Sorry for the spam, but this is because of people like him that people like me (i discovered D recently) that can't be aware of why D is a great language
>>
>> They diminish all arguments that makes D better than alternatives
>>
>>
>> You guys have to help me fight that kind of behavior, because it doesn't help D, as if it was their goal, do they want to make sure D doesn't eat specific market share, so some other language can? fishy fishy
>
> But they should be aware that C++ *as a language* has a long way to go before it gets all the features etc that D has. Maybe 2023, maybe 2027, who knows. Maybe that's fine for them, but not for me.

Au contraire; I find that C++ has modernised relatively successful and has a lot of great proposals in the pipeline. Of course they may all get rejected, but even if only some of them get accepted, C++ starts to have a leg up on D in my opinion.

It could take a few years indeed, but what will D do in that same time window?
December 31, 2020
On Thursday, 31 December 2020 at 14:56:37 UTC, Sebastiaan Koppe wrote:
> It could take a few years indeed, but what will D do in that same time window?

What would you like to see?



December 31, 2020
On Thursday, 31 December 2020 at 14:56:37 UTC, Sebastiaan Koppe wrote:
> On Thursday, 31 December 2020 at 09:57:01 UTC, Imperatorn wrote:
>> On Thursday, 31 December 2020 at 07:32:31 UTC, RSY wrote:
>>> [...]
>>
>> But they should be aware that C++ *as a language* has a long way to go before it gets all the features etc that D has. Maybe 2023, maybe 2027, who knows. Maybe that's fine for them, but not for me.
>
> Au contraire; I find that C++ has modernised relatively successful and has a lot of great proposals in the pipeline. Of course they may all get rejected, but even if only some of them get accepted, C++ starts to have a leg up on D in my opinion.
>
> It could take a few years indeed, but what will D do in that same time window?

That's true, but until that happens D is superior. Time will tell 😊
December 31, 2020
On Thursday, 31 December 2020 at 11:29:55 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grostad wrote:
> On Thursday, 31 December 2020 at 09:57:01 UTC, Imperatorn wrote:
>> On Thursday, 31 December 2020 at 07:32:31 UTC, RSY wrote: nowhere. Just use D and be happy and let others use C++ and let them be happy. But they should be aware that C++ *as a language* has a long way to go before it gets all the features etc that D has. Maybe 2023, maybe 2027, who knows. Maybe that's fine for them, but not for me.
>
> Which features are you most concerned about? I think the feature set is quite similar. D is less verbose and is easier to use for high level programming, but the clang++ and g++ have fewer bugs and quirks than the D compilers. The biggest difference is that C++ cannot change much, but D can!  D really ought to make more of that advantage... More streamlining even if it breaks stuff.

I was a bit unclear. I meant features as in built in language constructs etc, not necessarily like keywords and so on.

Hmm, regarding features I'd like in C++, maybe better metaprogramming and fewer keywords? Haven't thought about that

https://github.com/AnthonyCalandra/modern-cpp-features
December 31, 2020
On Thursday, 31 December 2020 at 18:13:40 UTC, Imperatorn wrote:
> I was a bit unclear. I meant features as in built in language constructs etc, not necessarily like keywords and so on.

You mean like associative arrays and dynamic arrays? If so then I guess people have different taste, I think it was a mistake to make those builtins...

I find code harder to read when symbols (e.g. "!") have so many meanings in D. I am creating my own experimental unicode-syntax now where each symbol has only one meaning... kinda like a prototype for testing the idea of using the full unicode charset for programming. So not necessarily a D specific issue, but D is a nice testbed for experimenting as it has so many features.

> Hmm, regarding features I'd like in C++, maybe better metaprogramming and fewer keywords? Haven't thought about that

I've never run into meta programming problems that I cannot deal with in C++ in way that works out ok in the end, but sometimes you have to search the web. Fortunately there are many "recipes" for big languages... without that... uhm. Then C++ would be a very difficult thing to handle :-D.

What I don't like about C++ is that things get verbose, but verbosity has some advantages when programs get very large because then you need more context to understand what is going on and where things are coming from.

It isn't obvious that something that is good for a medium sized program will be good for a very large program (e.g. "where did this symbol come from?"). You won't really find out until you've tried... but most D programs are small, so. No need to worry about that...



December 31, 2020
On Thursday, 31 December 2020 at 16:03:54 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
> On Thursday, 31 December 2020 at 14:56:37 UTC, Sebastiaan Koppe wrote:
>> It could take a few years indeed, but what will D do in that same time window?
>
> What would you like to see?

For shared to mean something.
Stackless coroutines.
Compile-time lifetime management, i.e. better ways to define ownership.
December 31, 2020
On Thursday, 31 December 2020 at 19:27:23 UTC, Sebastiaan Koppe wrote:
> On Thursday, 31 December 2020 at 16:03:54 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
>> What would you like to see?
>
> For shared to mean something.
> Stackless coroutines.
> Compile-time lifetime management, i.e. better ways to define ownership.

I second that. At least some way to know whether a pointer takes ownership (GC/RC) or just is an auxiliary reference.