On Wednesday, 7 December 2016 at 15:17:21 UTC, Picaud Vincent
wrote:
On Wednesday, 7 December 2016 at 11:48:32 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
[...]
I understand and I do agree with these points, honestly. These
points are also the reason why I will maybe try to use D for my
own codes (D is really much better than C++ concerning
template, meta programming syntax, embedded unit tests etc...).
However I think that to popularize/attract people to use D, it
is very important, to have a mechanism/feature that allows you
to be close to the "zero overhead" situation.
If you have two concurrent libraries (even in different
languages), people will adopt the fastest one... As an example,
look at the BLAS lib, people do not try to read/understand the
code to see how nice it is, they just look at benchmarks and
take the fastest implementation for their architecture. IMHO
that is the reason why D must let the opportunity, for those
who want (library developers for instance) of coding down to
the metal: the goal is to have visibility in benchmarks and to
attract users.
At least it is my point of view.
-- Vincent
I don't understand this discussion at all. Why not have both? I
don't need bare metal stuff at the moment but I might one day,
and I perfectly understand that people may need it. At the same
time, there are people who are happy with runtime/Phobos/GC. In
my opinion it's not a question of "either or" but of "both and".
