4 ms·
I emphatically disagree that C++11 has made D irrelevant. With C++11, I still have to think about fifty possible ways to do something, old and new, and all of t
by jordigh 9y ago
I emphatically disagree that C++11 has made D irrelevant. With C++11, I still have to think about fifty possible ways to do something, old and new, and all of the possible different implications and risks and segfaults I could get with each. I don't have the luxury of ignoring all C++ written before 2011, nor can I ignore all of the design decisions before 2011 that resulted in the current status of C++ features.
After working with C++11 (or C++14 or C++17), D is such a breath of fresh air. Everything is so... easy. I can do what I want, and I don't have to worry about doing just the wrong kind of thing to get a segfault or UB. I might get stack traces at runtime if I make a mistake, or even better, compiler errors because my types didn't check correctly or my compile-time evaluations had errors, but the language is much simpler and cleaner because it's been able to throw out the baggage of C++. In fact, it's thrown it out twice, once for D1 and again for D2, what is now simply called "D".
And being able to actually throw out cruft without concerns for backwards compatibility is why D isn't irrelevant.
- arunc 9y agoIs sid0 still rewriting hg server with rust? Is there a chance to convince him to use D instead ;-)