On Thursday, 3 September 2015 at 01:54:45 UTC, Laeeth Isharc
wrote:
On Tuesday, 1 September 2015 at 17:14:44 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
It's been mentioned before that there really isn't much point
in using C when you can use D. Even if you completely avoid
the GC and the standard library, you're _still_ ahead of where
you'd be with C, and you can call C functions trivially. So,
you can definitely use D as a better C; you just lose out on a
lot of cool stuff that D has to offer beyond that. But D has a
lot to offer over C even without using any of that stuff.
One of the first projects I used D for was back in college a
number of years ago where I got sick of some of the issues I
was having with C++ and went with D because it gave me stuff
like array bounds checking. I was using very few of D's
features (heck, D2 was quite young at that point, and I don't
think that ranges had been introduced to Phobos yet at that
point, so the standard library was seriously lacking anyway),
but it was still easier to use D.
- Jonathan M Davis
worthy of a quick blogpost sometime? Laeeth.
My memory would be pretty sketchy on it at this point. I remember
what the project was (it had to do with randomly generating 3D
fractals in opengl for a graphics course), but that was back in
2008, I think, and I couldn't really say much interesting about
it beyond the fact that I was annoyed enough with C++ at the time
to use D for the project. The only thing notable about it is that
it was the first thing that I did in D that was actually supposed
to do something rather than just messing around with the language.
- Jonathan M Davis
