On Sunday, 15 June 2014 at 18:50:14 UTC, Meta wrote:
On Sunday, 15 June 2014 at 11:28:12 UTC, Peter Alexander wrote:
http://c0de517e.blogspot.ca/2014/06/where-is-my-c-replacement.html?m=1
The arguments against D are pretty weak if I'm honest, but I
think it's important we understand what people think of D. I
can confirm this sentiment is fairly common in the industry.
Watch out for the little jab at Andrei :-P
I wonder where he got the idea that D isn't high performance...
Perhaps the fact that it has a GC?
I didn't mean that it doesn't produce fast code and I have
nothing against GC (if you can precisely control when you heap
allocate).
I meant not high-performance as not a HPC language (numerical
computation) like Julia, ISPC and the like, languages that focus
on executing parallel code.
It seems to me that D comes from the C lineage of "systems"
low-level languages, but there is always this confusion that
low-level means made for demanding computations.
I distinguish the two also because lots of C++ aficionados think
C++ is just the "fastest" language made for performance, but it's
clearly not, in fact before 11 it didn't even know what a thread
is, couldn't restrict pointer aliasing and it still today doesn't
know about SIMD (great that D does - even if I'd rather have
arbitrary sized vectors nowadays).
