4 ms·
D is indeed interesting. Wrote some experimental code this fall, was fairly happy with it, but wound up going w/ rust.
by mml 9y ago
D is indeed interesting. Wrote some experimental code this fall, was fairly happy with it, but wound up going w/ rust.
- stochastic_monk 9y agoI feel like D would fight with Go in the realm of things I'd use it for, in which case I'd pick it. On the other hand, D supports a lot of great C++-style stuff, but I'd never pick it in that regime because it'd be the same amount of effort without as-fast-as-possible.
- nicwilson 9y agoI find that D is far less effort to write equivalent functionality then C++ with reasonable perf. See the links in https://forum.dlang.org/thread/ov20hp$1ip6$1@digitalmars.com https://forum.dlang.org/thread/ov20hp$1ip6$1@digitalmars.com It is also possible for D to be as fast as C++ in many domains: we have LDC based on LLVM for optimisation (parity with clang), but I think that one of the biggest things is the flexibility to have (and determine what is) an efficient architecture.
- klickverbot 9y ago> it'd be the same amount of effort without as-fast-as-possible. While the first part is perhaps somewhat subjective, the second is just wrong. D allows you to get to the same bare-metal, no-holds-barred level of performance that C++ does – I wonder where that misconception would come from. Note that this is not just an academic possibility, but there are real-world use(r)s of D in exactly that domain, for example the folks at Weka.IO for their distributed file system. Of course, their sub-millisecond latencies don't leave much room for careless use of the garbage collector. But being careful about memory allocations for that sort of application is just as sensible a thing to do in D as it is in C++.