5 ms·

D 2.065 released with 396 fixes and improvements

48 points by andralex 13y ago

zeckalpha 13y ago
I've been hearing good things about the D community, but I've yet to see what makes it a better choice than Rust or Go. Anyone care to enlighten me?
- ben0x539 13y ago
  It's more of an attempt to provide a better C++, whereas I'd frame Rust or Go as attempts to avoid the need for a C++. D might be for you if you're heavily into C++ template metaprogramming and wish it was neater and more expressive and all around more powerful.
  - pjmlp 13y ago
    I would classify both D and Rust as modern languages for systems programming, for those developers that care about expressive languages with meta-programming capabilities and modern type systems. Go is rather what Java 1.0 should have been, 20 years later.
    - puppetmaster3 13y ago
      This!
    - bjz_ 13y ago
      > modern type systems I would dispute the fact that the type system is the a big draw to D. Whilst it is an improvement on C++, it is still hampered by the fact that it is ultimately descended from the ALGOL lineage. Advanced type systems lie with the MLs and Haskell, languages that Rust's type system is inspired by. What D has over Rust however is its expressive template metaprogramming. Templates have their shortcomings, but they are still a powerful form of static code generation that can really empower library developers.
      - pjmlp 13y ago
        Sure, I wasn't putting one against the other, as I like both languages and feel both will appeal to different types of audiences anyway. My main point was that they follow the school that you need expressive type systems, even if as you noted, each has different strengths. And both, each with a different set of mechanisms, allow for some sort of compile meta-programming.
- sanderjd 13y ago
  In addition to some of the other good answers here, D is a good deal older than Rust and is, I believe, more stable and mature as a result. If you're looking for a production-ready C++ alternative now, rather than X months from now, it seems like D is probably a better choice than Rust.
  - zeckalpha 13y ago
    That is a good point, though D2 is younger than Rust, no?
    - sanderjd 13y ago
      Fair point. Sounds like you probably know a lot more than me. Is D2 enough of an overhaul that I'm wrong about their relative stability and maturity?
      - zeckalpha 13y ago
        I know nothing, just what I've heard/read. If you go off age alone, 2006 vs 2001 isn't too far off.
    - eco 13y ago
      No, D2 was first released in 2007. It wasn't a completely new language written from scratch though. It was D1 with the addition of features that broke backward compatibility.
- qznc 13y ago
  Compared to Go: D is not focused on writing servers, but a more general language with much more features. Templates, Meta Programming, etc makes it more complex and harder to learn. However, it also gives you a comprehensive toolbox for any programming task you encounter. Compared to Rust, D is rock solid stable, relatively. Ok, seriously. Rust seems to specialize on low-level or high-performance code. D also allows for high-level easy programming (aka Java) due to its simpler type system, garbage collector. However, D does not sacrifice performance. I think Rust will find its niche more as a C replacement than a C++ replacement.
TylerE 13y ago
Are there any plans to cut a new version of Andrei's book at some point? I keep meaning to find some time to work thorugh it, but it's getting quite out of date (Was current with 2.010 or something, I think)
- eco 13y ago
  I don't think the language has really changed enough to warrant a new version of The D Programming Language[1]. I highly recommend reading Andrei's book even for people who have no intention of actually using D. It's just a really good read for anyone that has even the slightest interest in programming language design because its filled with the rationale behind every design decision and Andrei is a good writer. I'm doing a technical review of an upcoming book on D that I believe should be coming out the latter half of this year. 1. Jonathan Davis' list of changes since TDPL came out: http://forum.dlang.org/post/mailman.647.1327135415.16222.digitalmars-d-learn@puremagic.com http://forum.dlang.org/post/mailman.647.1327135415.16222.dig...
  - TylerE 13y ago
    I think that link rather proves rather than disproves my point...the erratta list is almost one per page, and the mailing list post you linked to is from over 2 years ago.
    - eco 13y ago
      A new run to fix mistakes would be nice but I don't think the publisher would jump at that since there isn't much motivation for current owners of the book to buy a version that is largely the same but with typos and other mistakes fixed.
    - andralex 13y ago
      The book is running out of stock. I am working on a third printing that fixes all errata.
heydenberk 13y ago
>> Goto jumps now cannot skip variable declarations I'm surprised that D lang even has a goto statement.
- taybin 13y ago
  goto is common in C and C++ code as a clean way to consolidate cleanup code without using exceptions. I imagine that's the main use case they wanted to preserve.
  - heydenberk 13y ago
    Still, though, goto is considered so harmful that it's inspiration for "considered harmful" phrasing. Apple's goto-related SSL vulnerability this week is a blatant, high-profile reminder of how harmful it is.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - dmunoz 13y ago
      > Still, though, goto is considered so harmful that it's inspiration for "considered harmful" phrasing. It gets tiring constantly hearing this. We discussed it in depth 18 days ago [0]. I'm going to copy and paste something I said then, as it's relevant to your post: > Also, a minor rant here: Dijkstra's "Go To Statement Considered Harmful" is often mentioned, sometime wordlessly, when goto is brought up, but it seems many of those people misunderstood what was actually being argued. Although he mentions being "convinced that the go to statement should be abolished from all 'higher level' programming languages," his main gripe was that the "unbridled use of the go to statement has an immediate consequence that it becomes terribly hard to find a meaningful set of coordinates in which to describe the process progress." He felt it was "as it stands is just too primitive; it is too much an invitation to make a mess of one's program." So, as others have pointed out already, his main issue was with goto being used in a way that resulted in unstructured, hard to understand programs. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7191201 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7191201 Edit: The original paper [1] is so short, it might as well be required reading before people bring up goto near any mention of "considered harmful". [1] http://www.u.arizona.edu/~rubinson/copyright_violations/Go_To_Considered_Harmful.html http://www.u.arizona.edu/~rubinson/copyright_violations/Go_T...

48 points by andralex 13y ago

I've been hearing good things about the D community, but I've yet to see what makes it a better choice than Rust or Go. Anyone care to enlighten me?

ben0x539 13y ago
It's more of an attempt to provide a better C++, whereas I'd frame Rust or Go as attempts to avoid the need for a C++. D might be for you if you're heavily into C++ template metaprogramming and wish it was neater and more expressive and all around more powerful.
- pjmlp 13y ago
  I would classify both D and Rust as modern languages for systems programming, for those developers that care about expressive languages with meta-programming capabilities and modern type systems. Go is rather what Java 1.0 should have been, 20 years later.
  - puppetmaster3 13y ago
    This!
  - bjz_ 13y ago
    > modern type systems I would dispute the fact that the type system is the a big draw to D. Whilst it is an improvement on C++, it is still hampered by the fact that it is ultimately descended from the ALGOL lineage. Advanced type systems lie with the MLs and Haskell, languages that Rust's type system is inspired by. What D has over Rust however is its expressive template metaprogramming. Templates have their shortcomings, but they are still a powerful form of static code generation that can really empower library developers.
    - pjmlp 13y ago
      Sure, I wasn't putting one against the other, as I like both languages and feel both will appeal to different types of audiences anyway. My main point was that they follow the school that you need expressive type systems, even if as you noted, each has different strengths. And both, each with a different set of mechanisms, allow for some sort of compile meta-programming.
sanderjd 13y ago
In addition to some of the other good answers here, D is a good deal older than Rust and is, I believe, more stable and mature as a result. If you're looking for a production-ready C++ alternative now, rather than X months from now, it seems like D is probably a better choice than Rust.
- zeckalpha 13y ago
  That is a good point, though D2 is younger than Rust, no?
  - sanderjd 13y ago
    Fair point. Sounds like you probably know a lot more than me. Is D2 enough of an overhaul that I'm wrong about their relative stability and maturity?
    - zeckalpha 13y ago
      I know nothing, just what I've heard/read. If you go off age alone, 2006 vs 2001 isn't too far off.
  - eco 13y ago
    No, D2 was first released in 2007. It wasn't a completely new language written from scratch though. It was D1 with the addition of features that broke backward compatibility.
qznc 13y ago
Compared to Go: D is not focused on writing servers, but a more general language with much more features. Templates, Meta Programming, etc makes it more complex and harder to learn. However, it also gives you a comprehensive toolbox for any programming task you encounter. Compared to Rust, D is rock solid stable, relatively. Ok, seriously. Rust seems to specialize on low-level or high-performance code. D also allows for high-level easy programming (aka Java) due to its simpler type system, garbage collector. However, D does not sacrifice performance. I think Rust will find its niche more as a C replacement than a C++ replacement.

TylerE 13y ago

Are there any plans to cut a new version of Andrei's book at some point? I keep meaning to find some time to work thorugh it, but it's getting quite out of date (Was current with 2.010 or something, I think)

eco 13y ago
I don't think the language has really changed enough to warrant a new version of The D Programming Language[1]. I highly recommend reading Andrei's book even for people who have no intention of actually using D. It's just a really good read for anyone that has even the slightest interest in programming language design because its filled with the rationale behind every design decision and Andrei is a good writer. I'm doing a technical review of an upcoming book on D that I believe should be coming out the latter half of this year. 1. Jonathan Davis' list of changes since TDPL came out: http://forum.dlang.org/post/mailman.647.1327135415.16222.digitalmars-d-learn@puremagic.com http://forum.dlang.org/post/mailman.647.1327135415.16222.dig...
- TylerE 13y ago
  I think that link rather proves rather than disproves my point...the erratta list is almost one per page, and the mailing list post you linked to is from over 2 years ago.
  - eco 13y ago
    A new run to fix mistakes would be nice but I don't think the publisher would jump at that since there isn't much motivation for current owners of the book to buy a version that is largely the same but with typos and other mistakes fixed.
  - andralex 13y ago
    The book is running out of stock. I am working on a third printing that fixes all errata.

heydenberk 13y ago

>> Goto jumps now cannot skip variable declarations I'm surprised that D lang even has a goto statement.

taybin 13y ago
goto is common in C and C++ code as a clean way to consolidate cleanup code without using exceptions. I imagine that's the main use case they wanted to preserve.
- heydenberk 13y ago
  Still, though, goto is considered so harmful that it's inspiration for "considered harmful" phrasing. Apple's goto-related SSL vulnerability this week is a blatant, high-profile reminder of how harmful it is.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - dmunoz 13y ago
    > Still, though, goto is considered so harmful that it's inspiration for "considered harmful" phrasing. It gets tiring constantly hearing this. We discussed it in depth 18 days ago [0]. I'm going to copy and paste something I said then, as it's relevant to your post: > Also, a minor rant here: Dijkstra's "Go To Statement Considered Harmful" is often mentioned, sometime wordlessly, when goto is brought up, but it seems many of those people misunderstood what was actually being argued. Although he mentions being "convinced that the go to statement should be abolished from all 'higher level' programming languages," his main gripe was that the "unbridled use of the go to statement has an immediate consequence that it becomes terribly hard to find a meaningful set of coordinates in which to describe the process progress." He felt it was "as it stands is just too primitive; it is too much an invitation to make a mess of one's program." So, as others have pointed out already, his main issue was with goto being used in a way that resulted in unstructured, hard to understand programs. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7191201 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7191201 Edit: The original paper [1] is so short, it might as well be required reading before people bring up goto near any mention of "considered harmful". [1] http://www.u.arizona.edu/~rubinson/copyright_violations/Go_To_Considered_Harmful.html http://www.u.arizona.edu/~rubinson/copyright_violations/Go_T...