On Tuesday, 25 April 2017 at 13:57:53 UTC, XavierAP wrote:
On Tuesday, 11 April 2017 at 06:08:16 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
I have to say it took me a very long time to come up with the
title and the abstract. How could I sell D to C++ experts?
Luckily, I asked Manu and among a long list of ideas he said
"it's about saving time" and "time is money". How can you
argue with that? ;)
I do agree, but C++ people may be less open to buy the whole
package at once... The other speakers (Rust, Haskell) will talk
about specific things that they regard as nicer in their
languages compared to C++ (safe memory access,
@safe
concurrency in Rust;
std.concurrency
Funny story: the first ever (and really, only) program I wrote in
Rust had a deadlock in it. I never did figure out why, I just
stopped using threads to get rid of the problem. I know it's only
anecdata, but "fearless concurrency" does not gel with my
experience.
I don't even remember the last time I wrote a deadlock in C++, if
ever. Not once in D, that's for sure. It's hard to deadlock when
you hardly ever lock. :)
I have fearless concurrency now, in D. Message passing FTW.
side effect safety in Haskell).
pure
C++ users can more easily agree to these individual points and
later become interested in the other languages.
Well, let's show them the same points then ;)
It's true that D's paradigm is less different from C++ and it's
more about being better designed and safer as a whole. It's
like, sure you can write 80% of D programs in C++ with only
twice the typing at most,
In my experience, _at least_ twice the typing, and 3 times as
many bugs. And I'm talking about C++14 here. The other day I was
reminded that in C++ land one has to manually write `operator<<`
to print things out and `operator==` to compare things.
Atila
