4 ms·

D has been in development since 1999, so it's more complete than Zig and its ecosystem is bigger. It is not just “Zig with GC”. D has: - Multiple production-re

D has been in development since 1999, so it's more complete than Zig and its ecosystem is bigger. It is not just “Zig with GC”. D has: - Multiple production-ready compilers. (Zig does not claim to be production-ready yet.) https://wiki.dlang.org/Compilers https://wiki.dlang.org/Compilers - A more stable API. (Zig's authors rightly expect it to change before 1.0.) - A package manager (dub) and repository: https://code.dlang.org/ https://code.dlang.org/ (Zig will get support for these but doesn't even have an HTTP client needed to back package fetching yet.) - An HTTP server and client with SSL/TLS support. (Zig is too new to have these, although community libs are starting to spring up to fill the gaps.) - Better documentation, including a very accessible tour at https://tour.dlang.org/ https://tour.dlang.org/ and books such as http://erdani.org/tdpl/ http://erdani.org/tdpl/. Zig may get all of these in time but D had quite the head start. D is a good language and I wish it got more attention.

still_grokking 4y ago
> D is a good language and I wish it got more attention. D always looked nice conceptually. But the syntax! Most likely I would use it actively if it wouldn't look like C. The type annotations are "on the wrong side". Type inference is barely-there (`auto` is a joke). It's littered with superfluous braces and semicolons. I would really love it if they would change the syntax, and the result would look more like the new syntax in Scala 3.
Touche 4y ago
I think this is a little disingenuous. 99% of the D ecosystem uses the GC. You probably can't use most of it if you put @nogc on main. 99% of the D ecosystem of docs and articles assumes using the GC. You're going to struggle learning how to build something without it. You are kind of on your own. Also @nogc only was added in 2014, it's not that old. So given that, I honestly doubt that @nogc is much more mature than Zig, and is probably more difficult to learn how to use in practice, given that it's not a normal thing to do.

still_grokking 4y ago

> D is a good language and I wish it got more attention. D always looked nice conceptually. But the syntax! Most likely I would use it actively if it wouldn't look like C. The type annotations are "on the wrong side". Type inference is barely-there (`auto` is a joke). It's littered with superfluous braces and semicolons. I would really love it if they would change the syntax, and the result would look more like the new syntax in Scala 3.

Touche 4y ago

I think this is a little disingenuous. 99% of the D ecosystem uses the GC. You probably can't use most of it if you put @nogc on main. 99% of the D ecosystem of docs and articles assumes using the GC. You're going to struggle learning how to build something without it. You are kind of on your own. Also @nogc only was added in 2014, it's not that old. So given that, I honestly doubt that @nogc is much more mature than Zig, and is probably more difficult to learn how to use in practice, given that it's not a normal thing to do.