On 6/29/20 8:45 AM, Dagmar wrote:
> I am a C++ developer.
I used to be a C++ developer; luckily, I primarily write in D these
days. (I can still code in C++ and will have to do so again soon.)
> I do want to move to a modern language, but there
> is no one that fits my needs.
[...]
> Go is just an oversimplified language. No generics/teplates in 2020,
> seriously?
+1 And it's fascinating how they sold all the shortcomings as benefits.
Amazing!
> D has a GC.
Coming from C++, I was a die-hard "deterministic destruction" guy and it
took me a long time to embrace GC. Now I know GC is pure help. GC is no
more issue than any other engineering decisions.
> If you turn it off you lose dynamic/associative arrays,
> classes, probably something else.
Then don't turn it off. :)
I understand there are programs where an undeterministic delay in
processing is unacceptable but those programs all run on real-time
operating systems anyway, right? ;)
> Why would I even want to use such
> language at all?
For practicality. For getting things done.
> It's much easier to stay with C++ this way, since it
> has lots of C/C++ libraries, IDEs, tools, broad community, support of
> big companies.
It requires a strong C++ mindset to take GC as a liability and accept
C++ complexities like the following one as manageable:
OOPS: :) I fail to find a reference table that explains implicitly or
explicitly deleted or defaulted fundamental C++ operations like the copy
constructor.
Yeah, accepting that kind of complexity but rejecting the GC is
interesting. (I am not directing this to you but to most C++ programmers.)
> Of course, since D doesn't look like a mature language. I've been
> following it for many years and it doesn't really improve. It looks just
> like a bunch of different things/concepts put together.
That may be true for many languages but when it comes to getting things
done I find D much more productive, manageable, easier, etc. etc.
compared to C++. C++ has only one thing over D: Many smart people are
already using C++.
> Many things are
> stalled without of any progress because there is no consensus.
> The entire DIP process is not good. There is no way to find the current
> DIP status, no way to learn when and whether it's going to be
> implemented or not. Have you noticed such questions in the forum
recently?
> The current status of the language is unclear. Sometimes there is only
> one way to find out why it behaves like it does: to ask in this forum.
> And you may not like the answers.
> D has transitive const, but what if I
> should lazy evaluate/cache a value or use a mutex?
Although I agree that transitive const is the correct feature, I too
find it difficult.
> If I shouldn't use
> const, how should I emphasize the intention to pass a pointer only for
> reading? How can I be sure that my class invariant is not compromised?
> Also, there is the shared attribute, but it isn't designed nor
> implemented well. Lots of questions, no solutions. D is intended to be a
> C++ replacement, but it doesn't explain to C++ programmers how to change
> their way of thinking.
There is this dated document:
https://dlang.org/articles/cpptod.html
Although dated, that document should be sufficient to jump to D from C++. :)
> Maintainers don't like to make breaking changes when they are required.
> Come on guys, it's called an evolution.
Interestingly, one of the criticism D gets is how it evolves with
breaking changes. :)
> That's why C++ is so
> overcomplicated right now. It tries to keep backward compatibility at
> all costs. I hope you don't want D to get into the same situation? Any
> modern language requires a chance to evolve. Sometimes you just have to
> break something. And making it once in a year (or 2-3 years) doesn't
> look like a bad option to me.
I agree.
Ali
