3 ms·

D is much more "C++ done right" (and then some). C and Zig are very barebones, close-to-the-metal language. D has garbage collection, classes, templates, except

by wk_end 6y ago

D is much more "C++ done right" (and then some). C and Zig are very barebones, close-to-the-metal language. D has garbage collection, classes, templates, exceptions, built-in dynamic arrays and hash tables, and on and on and on. The "Features Overview" page makes me go cross-eyed [1]. Yes, you can turn many of these things off or ignore them and just use D as a better C, but the same could be said of C++ (for some definition of "better"). Or most languages, really, if you squint enough. [1] https://dlang.org/comparison.html https://dlang.org/comparison.html

dnautics 6y ago
I almost feel like D is "go done right" (I am aware that D precedes go).
optymizer 6y ago
Yes, and people do use C++ as a better C to get OO and a stronger type system, at the cost of compilation times (and the usual C++ pitfalls). I use D as better C. I use it as better C++ at times. Once ownership/borrowing [1] is stable, I'll use it as a better Rust too. For close-to-the-metal code, I use D's inline assembler [2]. "To go any lower level than that, you'd need a miniature soldering iron and a very, very steady hand." (Andrei Alexandrescu) [1] https://dlang.org/blog/2019/07/15/ownership-and-borrowing-in-d/ https://dlang.org/blog/2019/07/15/ownership-and-borrowing-in... [2] https://dlang.org/spec/iasm.html https://dlang.org/spec/iasm.html
p0nce 6y ago
But native code is native code, there isn't a magical layer underneath that would make Zig closer to the metal than D, unless perhaps the voluntary Undefined Behaviour zig is willing to take such as those for loops.
tastyminerals2 6y ago
A common misconception, probably because the majority of D users are C++ veterans. But D was never designed as a successor to C++. "One of the earliest design decisions that Walter made about D was that it would be easy to use with software written in C. Many widely-used libraries are implemented in C or have a C interface. He wanted to provide an easy path for established software companies to adopt the D language. A straightforward approach was to guarantee that users of D could immediately take advantage of any C library their project required without the need to reimplement it in D." from "Origins of the D programming language" by W.Bright, A.Alexandrescu, M.Parker. D has an optional conservative mark-sweep Boehm GC which only gets triggered when you attempt to allocate something on the heap. If you don't do that, it won't bother you. Finally, you can explicitly disable it. People generally ignore or miss the fact that D really shines when it comes CTFE, reflection and metaprogramming.

by wk_end 6y ago

dnautics 6y ago

I almost feel like D is "go done right" (I am aware that D precedes go).

optymizer 6y ago

Yes, and people do use C++ as a better C to get OO and a stronger type system, at the cost of compilation times (and the usual C++ pitfalls). I use D as better C. I use it as better C++ at times. Once ownership/borrowing [1] is stable, I'll use it as a better Rust too. For close-to-the-metal code, I use D's inline assembler [2]. "To go any lower level than that, you'd need a miniature soldering iron and a very, very steady hand." (Andrei Alexandrescu) [1] https://dlang.org/blog/2019/07/15/ownership-and-borrowing-in-d/ https://dlang.org/blog/2019/07/15/ownership-and-borrowing-in... [2] https://dlang.org/spec/iasm.html https://dlang.org/spec/iasm.html

p0nce 6y ago

But native code is native code, there isn't a magical layer underneath that would make Zig closer to the metal than D, unless perhaps the voluntary Undefined Behaviour zig is willing to take such as those for loops.

tastyminerals2 6y ago

A common misconception, probably because the majority of D users are C++ veterans. But D was never designed as a successor to C++. "One of the earliest design decisions that Walter made about D was that it would be easy to use with software written in C. Many widely-used libraries are implemented in C or have a C interface. He wanted to provide an easy path for established software companies to adopt the D language. A straightforward approach was to guarantee that users of D could immediately take advantage of any C library their project required without the need to reimplement it in D." from "Origins of the D programming language" by W.Bright, A.Alexandrescu, M.Parker. D has an optional conservative mark-sweep Boehm GC which only gets triggered when you attempt to allocate something on the heap. If you don't do that, it won't bother you. Finally, you can explicitly disable it. People generally ignore or miss the fact that D really shines when it comes CTFE, reflection and metaprogramming.