On Sunday, 29 December 2013 at 06:00:31 UTC, Adam Wilson wrote:
I want to make a point here that many people come to do looking for something that is as performant as C++ with the ease of C# or Java, and for the most part (using LDC/GDC) you get exactly that. This language could convince me to go back to C#.
I think neither Go, D or this language is as performant as (skilled use of) C/C++. If the background information is correct, this new language is aiming at safe concurrent programming. Just like Go. So they apparently use a scheme of making variables immutable and isolated and with all global variables immutable… I don't think you need to do that in all cases with transactional memory now available in new processors. Global variables are fast and easy for objects with few interdependencies, with near lock-free mechanisms in place, such as CAS and transactional memory, this is overkill in many scenarios.
Simple, tight, unsafe, low-level memory-coherent designs tend to be faster. Guards as language-level-constructs, local storage etc, tend to be slower. But yes, I agree that this language could swipe the feet under D and Rust, Go is safe through its application domain. D really need some work in the low-level area to shine.
D/Rust/Go/this-C#-language all claim to be system levels programming languages. I think they are not, as long as C/C++ is a better solution for embedded programming it will remain THE system level programming language. Which is kind of odd, considering that embedded systems would benefit a lot from a safe programming language (due to the cost/difficulty of updating software installed on deployed hardware).
It doesn't matter if it is possible to write C++-like code in a language if the library support and knowhow isn't dominant in the ecosystem. (Like assuming a GC or trying too hard to be cross-platform).
