6 ms·

100% genuine question: why would somebody learn D over rust/go/erlang (depending of your specific projects) ?

liveoneggs 8y ago
D vs go/erlang - D is a "real" systems language insomuch that you don't have a runtime spawning threads without you. D vs rust - D is 100% more familiar to anyone with C or C++ background
- efaref 8y ago
  > D vs rust - D is 100% more familiar to anyone with C or C++ background I had the opposite experience. I have a long history of C and C++ development, yet I found D pretty impenetrable (my team inherited some D code to maintain). Rust, however, was easy to use out of the box.
- sametmax 8y ago
  I have a hard time finding value in this. Mastering a language take years, so the tool better has some killer feature to make it worth the investment. I can see why Go, if you want an easy to compiled yet middle level language with good concurrency. I can see why erlang, if you want crazy concurrency, and reliability. I can see why rust, if you want c/c++ power, with a modern touch and a safety net. But what is the selling point in D ? Why should I choose D over those for a particular task, and take the time and energy on this on not something else ?
  - liveoneggs 8y ago
    D only "competes" with rust in the list you gave, is what I was really trying to say. If you are working on something high-level enough to use erlang then I think you should. (I love erlang)
asow92 8y ago
It feels like Java and acts like C. It almost feels like what Objective C should have been.
- axaxs 8y ago
  This comment is funny to me as it shows how different programmers tastes are. Some would say that is the worst of both worlds.
  - asow92 8y ago
    At the end of the day these are all just tools and some work better than others depending on the job and the person wielding it.
  - mhh__ 8y ago
    You can write pure functional code in D, if that floats your boat.
    - liveoneggs 8y ago
      D grew pattern matching and guards? (multi-funcs/etc)
      - sametmax 8y ago
        What the difference between a guards and a plain if ? I never understood it.
      - mhh__ 8y ago
        If you so choose to D can have a relatively clean library implementation. The type inference isn't bidirectional (Or at least it pales in comparison to HM) so it wouldn't be as good as ML-like FP. Pattern matching is a feature of pure functional code rather than a requirement (As useful as it is, every time I touch haskell for fun I always miss the mathematical approach to coding when I then write in C-land). Enforced purity is a feature, however. That's what I was referring to. However, ..., there is no pure-IO so it would be like Haskell before Monadic IO was figured out (I assume).
- philwelch 8y ago
  Java-style OO is a model where one can and should take the good, dispose of the bad, and improve on what falls in between. Go types and interfaces do a good job of this IMO--like Java classes, Go types can include a defined data structure and methods, but unlike Java classes, there's no inheritance. Like Java interfaces, Go interfaces let you type-check against multiple types that have the same outwards-facing behavior, but unlike Java interfaces, you don't have to actually declare that a type fulfills an interface as you define it. These are all pretty obvious improvements IMO.
mhh__ 8y ago
Even though it doesn't have the same theoretical rigour as Rust or Erlang (Go is a totally different beast), D is a really thoughtful, modern language which I - personally, of course - feel very productive in. Although I'm really behind the times on Rust, metaprogramming feels like a joke in other (Non ML-esque) languages compared to the facilities available in D Walter Bright, the man who designed most of the language along with Andrei Alexandrescu, are both C++ heavyweights and it shows. Template syntax using template!type instead of template<type> is a great - surface level - example of this attention to detail: Easier on the eyes and orders of magnitude easier for the compiler
- sametmax 8y ago
  Would you say that metaprogramming is an important selling point for you ? If so, it would be a sign for me no to invest in D, as my experience is that easy metaprogramming leads to more abuse than goodies. I
  - mhh__ 8y ago
    Yes. D metaprogramming is so fucking good that it's easy to do well. It's really obvious, and even at it's worst it's no worse than C++ (Except much easier to debug due to D's much less fundamentalist type system). I hate languages that deliberately take features away from the developer: This is why - although I respect the philosophy - I would never choose to use Go, for example. But to each their own, etc.
    - foobarchu 8y ago
      > even at it's worst it's no worse than C++ I can't think of a language whose metaprogramming features get abused worse than C++, so saying it's not worse isn't really heaping praise.
      - mhh__ 8y ago
        I was really referring to the error messages, because you can write C++ style templates (e.g. SFINAE) in D but no one does because D was designed properly so it has proper traits etc. C++ style template messages are uncommon but possible, however D is much much easier to debug because the type system is working with you and basically available in the language - in the sense that you can use traits and reflection to work out what went wrong (as opposed to stdin. byLineCopy.array.sort!((a, b) => a >b).each!writeln; This example is everyday code in D, but basically unthinkable in C++ (Possible but try getting it that short without writing your own library). It is also telling that the aesthetic style of the above code (UFCS) is a feature D has had for years but was rejected for inclusion into C++ despite BS backing it.

D vs go/erlang - D is a "real" systems language insomuch that you don't have a runtime spawning threads without you. D vs rust - D is 100% more familiar to anyone with C or C++ background

efaref 8y ago
> D vs rust - D is 100% more familiar to anyone with C or C++ background I had the opposite experience. I have a long history of C and C++ development, yet I found D pretty impenetrable (my team inherited some D code to maintain). Rust, however, was easy to use out of the box.
sametmax 8y ago
I have a hard time finding value in this. Mastering a language take years, so the tool better has some killer feature to make it worth the investment. I can see why Go, if you want an easy to compiled yet middle level language with good concurrency. I can see why erlang, if you want crazy concurrency, and reliability. I can see why rust, if you want c/c++ power, with a modern touch and a safety net. But what is the selling point in D ? Why should I choose D over those for a particular task, and take the time and energy on this on not something else ?
- liveoneggs 8y ago
  D only "competes" with rust in the list you gave, is what I was really trying to say. If you are working on something high-level enough to use erlang then I think you should. (I love erlang)

asow92 8y ago

It feels like Java and acts like C. It almost feels like what Objective C should have been.

axaxs 8y ago
This comment is funny to me as it shows how different programmers tastes are. Some would say that is the worst of both worlds.
- asow92 8y ago
  At the end of the day these are all just tools and some work better than others depending on the job and the person wielding it.
- mhh__ 8y ago
  You can write pure functional code in D, if that floats your boat.
  - liveoneggs 8y ago
    D grew pattern matching and guards? (multi-funcs/etc)
    - sametmax 8y ago
      What the difference between a guards and a plain if ? I never understood it.
    - mhh__ 8y ago
      If you so choose to D can have a relatively clean library implementation. The type inference isn't bidirectional (Or at least it pales in comparison to HM) so it wouldn't be as good as ML-like FP. Pattern matching is a feature of pure functional code rather than a requirement (As useful as it is, every time I touch haskell for fun I always miss the mathematical approach to coding when I then write in C-land). Enforced purity is a feature, however. That's what I was referring to. However, ..., there is no pure-IO so it would be like Haskell before Monadic IO was figured out (I assume).
philwelch 8y ago
Java-style OO is a model where one can and should take the good, dispose of the bad, and improve on what falls in between. Go types and interfaces do a good job of this IMO--like Java classes, Go types can include a defined data structure and methods, but unlike Java classes, there's no inheritance. Like Java interfaces, Go interfaces let you type-check against multiple types that have the same outwards-facing behavior, but unlike Java interfaces, you don't have to actually declare that a type fulfills an interface as you define it. These are all pretty obvious improvements IMO.

mhh__ 8y ago

Even though it doesn't have the same theoretical rigour as Rust or Erlang (Go is a totally different beast), D is a really thoughtful, modern language which I - personally, of course - feel very productive in. Although I'm really behind the times on Rust, metaprogramming feels like a joke in other (Non ML-esque) languages compared to the facilities available in D Walter Bright, the man who designed most of the language along with Andrei Alexandrescu, are both C++ heavyweights and it shows. Template syntax using template!type instead of template<type> is a great - surface level - example of this attention to detail: Easier on the eyes and orders of magnitude easier for the compiler

sametmax 8y ago
Would you say that metaprogramming is an important selling point for you ? If so, it would be a sign for me no to invest in D, as my experience is that easy metaprogramming leads to more abuse than goodies. I
- mhh__ 8y ago
  Yes. D metaprogramming is so fucking good that it's easy to do well. It's really obvious, and even at it's worst it's no worse than C++ (Except much easier to debug due to D's much less fundamentalist type system). I hate languages that deliberately take features away from the developer: This is why - although I respect the philosophy - I would never choose to use Go, for example. But to each their own, etc.
  - foobarchu 8y ago
    > even at it's worst it's no worse than C++ I can't think of a language whose metaprogramming features get abused worse than C++, so saying it's not worse isn't really heaping praise.
    - mhh__ 8y ago
      I was really referring to the error messages, because you can write C++ style templates (e.g. SFINAE) in D but no one does because D was designed properly so it has proper traits etc. C++ style template messages are uncommon but possible, however D is much much easier to debug because the type system is working with you and basically available in the language - in the sense that you can use traits and reflection to work out what went wrong (as opposed to stdin. byLineCopy.array.sort!((a, b) => a >b).each!writeln; This example is everyday code in D, but basically unthinkable in C++ (Possible but try getting it that short without writing your own library). It is also telling that the aesthetic style of the above code (UFCS) is a feature D has had for years but was rejected for inclusion into C++ despite BS backing it.