On Friday, 15 June 2018 at 23:04:40 UTC, Sjoerd Nijboer wrote:
For someone coming from a C# background there is some seemingly
simple syntactic sugar missing from D.
* The null conditional operator `?.`
This has been discussed many times and would definitely require a
DIP and a good usecase. I'm all in support for this one.
* Something like a `yield return` statement for coroutines.
D has ranges and doesn't need statemachines like C#.
T* he `async` & `await` keyword from C# make proactor pattern
D uses fibers and calling the yield() function has pretty much
same behavior.
The major difference is your async code looks synchronous and
thus more natural.
D is a clear winner on this one IMO.
async code extremely easy to reason about.
See above.
* a good syntax for properties so there's less code bloat.
I agree with this, but will probably never happen.
* replacing `Allocator.make()` with `new!Allocator`. After all
`new` can be concidered as just a wrapper around the standard
Not sure about this. The less ties the language has to the
library, the better.
GC allocator. Why can't we just have a special template of it?
Above.
I have realized that I have become quite dependant on syntactic
sugar to the point that it severely impacts my productivity
when I work whitout. And these ones are my biggest obstacles
when I try to work with D from a C# experience. I think that C#
really nailed down some of these particular examples except the
last one of course.
And I also think D could do a better job of embracing
productivity through supporting syntax of common tasks and
borrow from other languages in that regard.
But the most important question is how other people feel about
that.
If people hate syntactic sugar D will never become that gem for
me that I would like it to be. But if key people want it, it
one day might.
All in all.
D requires a DIP for each and very good usecase. Not just "I
think they're useful and I'd like them"
