On Saturday, 4 January 2014 at 02:09:51 UTC, NoUseForAName wrote:
This piece (recently seen on the Hacker News front page):
http://rust-class.org/pages/using-rust-for-an-undergraduate-os-course.html
.. includes a pretty damning assessment of D as "unsafe"
(compared to Rust) and generally doomed. I remember hearing
Walter Bright talking a lot about "safe code" during a D
presentation. Was that about a different kind of safety? Is the
author just wrong? Basically I want to hear the counterargument
(if there is one).
Quoting: "The biggest disadvantage of D compared to Rust is that
it does not have the kind of safety perspective that Rust does,
and in particular does not provide safe constructs for
concurrency. "
On surface this looks like explaining why D is unsafe, but the
article fails to study real issues which were discussed in
newsgroups or were filed in bugzilla. From my experience, there
are much better opportunities to elaborate on why D is unsafe.
Quoted citation looks extremely naive.
"The other argument against using D is that it has been around
more than 10 years now, without much adoption and appears to be
more likely on its way out rather than increasing popularity."
I doubt.
Why have you posted this ungrounded Rust advertisement anyway?
