6 ms·
D have one thing going for it, it has Walter Bright and Andrei Alexandrescu Other than that, not so much D is a language with no clear strategic advantage D
by systems 7y ago
D have one thing going for it,
it has Walter Bright and Andrei Alexandrescu
Other than that, not so much
D is a language with no clear strategic advantage
D is language that doesn't have enough high level features to make it a top choice for application development
And is not low level enough to be a top choice for systems programming
D's failure is at a strategic level, it wont be solved by adding new features or even removing features
- faissaloo 7y agoActually I think D would be helped by removing features and focusing on really refining the existing stuff, especially CTFE which I think is the real selling point of D.
- B1FF_PSUVM 7y ago> CTFE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compile_time_function_execution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compile_time_function_executio...
- skocznymroczny 7y agoWhat kind of features do you think should be removed? There were some people on the forums that were in favor of removing any feature that could be reimplemented with templates as a library solution.
- faissaloo 7y agoOptional parentheses, UFCS, BetterC, named character entities and the objective-C & C++ interfaces to name a few.
- mhh__ 7y agoRemoving the C++ interfaces? This would completely break a decent chunk of the compilers of D, no? betterC, UFCS are both opt in so what's the rationale for breaking a huge amount of library code?
- faissaloo 7y agoThe rationale would be focusing the efforts of the small development community on the important features and having to worry less about breaking existing functionality.
- mhh__ 7y agoSo we remove a bunch of well tested, working language features on the basis of making the community do less work? UFCS will probably never change, and even it did it's actually a relatively trivial part of the compiler to implement (i.e. Just a change to the grammar and a basic lookup and type check)
- faissaloo 7y ago>So we remove a bunch of well tested, working language features on the basis of making the community do less work? No, it's about focusing effort.
- p0nce 7y agoSome polls were tried but you will hardly get any agreement on which features to remove.
- skocznymroczny 7y agoTBH, I'd be in support of removing every feature related to C++ interfacing. To interface with C++, you need to become like C++. If you become like C++, people will just use C++. D has spent considerable engineering effort in various areas in chase of a mythical "C++ programmer", but those people seem to be moving to Rust instead.
- mhh__ 7y agoRemoving what?