On Tuesday, 29 September 2015 at 11:40:20 UTC, Ola Fosheim
Grøstad wrote:
On Tuesday, 29 September 2015 at 09:02:13 UTC, John Colvin
wrote:
actually use the product. If you can put your theoretical mind
on hold for a few days and actually immerse yourself in the
language and its idioms for practical use*, you'd see that D
has a large feature-overlap with to up-to-date C++, but often
feels very different in practice.
There is nothing theoretical about this, I am only concerned
about the language, not the standard library. The same with C++.
One usually don't judge a system level language based on its
libraries. System level usage of the same system level language
can be very different because people use different core
libraries. So there is essentially no reason to complain about
D's libraries.
If you look for system level programming you also essentially
agree to writing the libraries you need or create bindings to
whatever system you intend to build for. I am not interested
in Phobos, I am not fond of it and I don't focus on it since I
don't have to use it. I am interested in the language/runtime,
not libraries which I understand that I have to do on my own.
Ok, that's fine, but your comments don't generally come with a
"this observation is limited to very bare-bones code, beyond
which I am not interested to think about" caveat, the stuff your
saying is often very wide-ranging. Also, even for the low-level
work that you specialise in, practice can lead to insights.
