Re: D vs Rust

On 09/04/2017 08:13 AM, Eljay wrote: > the original language was Object Pascal. Just a random connection: Bastiaan Veelo's DConf presentation was about parsing Extended Pascal. http://dconf.org/2017/talks/veelo.html > Sorry if I didn't express myself clearly. I agree that D rocks! :p

Re: D vs Rust

On Sunday, 3 September 2017 at 19:40:27 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote: Been there, done that. Decision makers rationalize any other choice pretty easily: In my fantasy, I'd be the decision maker. ;-) In reality, along all my career, usually the decision as to the language used was made usually by

Re: D vs Rust

On Sunday, 3 September 2017 at 19:40:27 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote: > Hi Bearophile! I'm afraid bearophile has moved to greener pastures. I've run into bearophile on Reddit on Rust-related threads. He uses a different name there. *sigh*

Re: D vs Rust

On Sunday, 3 September 2017 at 19:40:27 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote: Decision makers rationalize any other choice pretty easily: There is a useful method in the book "Thinking Fast and Slow" to try to be rational about a choice. 1/ Before looking the different solitions, make a list of

Re: D vs Rust

On 09/03/2017 11:26 AM, Eljay wrote: > I put D on the list. Been there, done that. Decision makers rationalize any other choice pretty easily: - Python is 20 times slower: "We don't need speed." - Python has a global lock: "We will start RESTful separate processes." - Python's memory foot

Re: D vs Rust

I work on a large multi-platform desktop shrink-wrap application. It is a large application, with a code base of over 400,000 files. The majority of which is C++, although there is some JavaScript in the mix in some of the corners of the UI. The code base is about 30 years old... so you

Re: D vs Rust

bearophile writes: Hello bearophile, and thank you very much for your insightful reply! > But for an average multi-platform desktop application Ada is not a > good idea. The main problem is not the language itself (that is very > verbose, but that's not a

Re: D vs Rust

gour: For quite some time I was looking at Ada as potential language to write multi-platform desktop application, but, being the big language which requires lot of time and energy to invest into learning/mastering it, I, somehow, feel reluctant seeing that there is practically no open-source

Re: D vs Rust

On Saturday, 30 January 2016 at 20:48:01 UTC, bearophile wrote: Hello bearophile, In Ada you can be productive if you use it for the purposes it was invented for, but most times you don't write that kind of code. I miss some Ada features, and I've missed the strictness of the Ada compiler

Re: D vs Rust

xenon325: Doesn't http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP25 fix this ? I think DIP25 is designed to be only a partial solution, it's not a complete memory safety story. Bye, bearophile

Re: D vs Rust

On Monday, 1 February 2016 at 07:13:32 UTC, xenon325 wrote: On Sunday, 31 January 2016 at 16:18:21 UTC, bearophile wrote: And currently it's dead-easy to write unsafe code even in @safe D functions: int[] foo() pure @safe { int[2] a = [10, 20]; auto b = a[]; return b; } void

Re: D vs Rust

On Sunday, 31 January 2016 at 18:32:12 UTC, Xinok wrote: He likely means that, in general, D code has fewer bugs than C++11 code. Which is a questionable claim. If we are going to compare we have to compare performance vs proficiency vs risk of making mistake vs tooling vs X factors. You

Re: D vs Rust

On Sun, 31 Jan 2016 15:44:37 +, Laeeth Isharc wrote: > bearophile: > "I am sometimes able to write working D code almost as quickly as Python > code" > > Yes, indeed - that's my experience too. I wonder what we could do to > make this most of the time, if not almost always, and for less >

Re: D vs Rust

Thanks, bearophile.

Re: D vs Rust

On Sunday, 31 January 2016 at 16:30:47 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote: On Sunday, 31 January 2016 at 16:18:21 UTC, bearophile wrote: Regarding the code reliability, D is better than C++11 That's a bold claim. What do you mean by "code reliability"? You get as strong typing as you want with

Re: D vs Rust

On Sunday, 31 January 2016 at 16:18:21 UTC, bearophile wrote: And currently it's dead-easy to write unsafe code even in @safe D functions: int[] foo() pure @safe { int[2] a = [10, 20]; auto b = a[]; return b; } void main() {} Doesn't http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP25 fix this ?

Re: D vs Rust

On Sunday, 31 January 2016 at 15:44:37 UTC, Laeeth Isharc wrote: Walter - sorry about that. I need to get someone to help on that front as I have so little time. Should work now. Still happening, had three email replies returned this weekend.

Re: D vs Rust

Guillaume Piolat "- D is a large language, not sure how much relatively to Rust. I've heard Rust is complicated too." and yet, it's easy to get started if you know C. one can be quite quickly productive without having any experience of template metaprogramming, CTFE, and the like, and

Re: D vs Rust

On Sunday, 31 January 2016 at 15:44:37 UTC, Laeeth Isharc wrote: Guillaume Piolat "- D is a large language, not sure how much relatively to Rust. I've heard Rust is complicated too." and yet, it's easy to get started if you know C. one can be quite quickly productive without having any

Re: D vs Rust

On Sunday, 31 January 2016 at 16:18:21 UTC, bearophile wrote: Regarding the code reliability, D is better than C++11 That's a bold claim. What do you mean by "code reliability"? You get as strong typing as you want with C++. (And no, Laeeth, the fact that Manu has a nice boss that allows

Re: D vs Rust

Laeeth Isharc: On Saturday, 30 January 2016 at 16:51:09 UTC, Laeeth Isharc wrote: I haven't used Ocaml, but was intrigued by it after seeing Yaron Minsky's talks. To what extent can pattern matching, strong types with invariants and other things Ocaml features be implemented idiomatically in

Re: D vs Rust

On Friday, 29 January 2016 at 15:39:53 UTC, bearophile wrote: qznc: On Friday, 29 January 2016 at 09:00:52 UTC, qznc wrote: D is a broader language and is applicable in more situations. In many cases you don't care and don't want to care about memory management. Learning to manage memory in

Re: D vs Rust

On Friday, 29 January 2016 at 17:50:04 UTC, jmh530 wrote: My understanding is that D has a lot of options for behavior similar to RAII, but it does not have the full capability. What would be the most important thing for D to change to improve the experience of binding to C++? Support RAII:

Re: D vs Rust

On 1/30/2016 12:48 PM, bearophile wrote: [...] Thanks for writing this, you make a lot of points I wasn't aware of.

Re: D vs Rust

BTW, your email server is rejecting my emails to you!

Re: D vs Rust

On 1/29/2016 12:26 AM, John Colvin wrote: It depends what you mean by templated. I believe the interoperability work is for the results of instantiated templates, not on the templates themselves. That's right. D can link to instantiated templates, and will duplicate the layout. But D will not

Re: D vs Rust

On Thursday, 28 January 2016 at 22:30:51 UTC, nbro wrote: [...] I retransmission this post in rust's user-forum. It is url: https://users.rust-lang.org/t/rust-vs-dlang-i-want-more-experienced/4472 there have more point.

Re: D vs Rust

On 31/01/16 6:00 PM, Walter Bright wrote: BTW, your email server is rejecting my emails to you! Worse case scenario for Laeeth contact via LinkedIn.

Re: D vs Rust

On Friday, 29 January 2016 at 07:01:07 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote: Am 29.01.2016 um 00:18 schrieb Ola Foaheim Grøstad: D is closer to C++ style templating and OO, and currently focus on enabling binding to non-template C++ libraries. Small correction: Should be "binding to template based C++

Re: D vs Rust

On Thursday, 28 January 2016 at 22:30:51 UTC, nbro wrote: Apart from [syntax], what are the real advantages of D over Rust? D is a broader language and is applicable in more situations. In many cases you don't care and don't want to care about memory management. Use D and its garbage

Re: D vs Rust

On Friday, 29 January 2016 at 07:01:07 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote: Small correction: Should be "binding to template based C++ libraries" - non-template libraries have worked more or less for a while now. Actually less. Without RAII you can't bind any realistic C++ library like Qt.

Re: D vs Rust

On Friday, 29 January 2016 at 08:26:01 UTC, John Colvin wrote: It depends what you mean by templated. I believe the interoperability work is for the results of instantiated templates, not on the templates themselves. Hmm, not sure how important that is. At least in my C++ class templates

Re: D vs Rust

On Friday, 29 January 2016 at 08:23:38 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote: On Friday, 29 January 2016 at 07:01:07 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote: Am 29.01.2016 um 00:18 schrieb Ola Foaheim Grøstad: D is closer to C++ style templating and OO, and currently focus on enabling binding to non-template C++

Re: D vs Rust

qznc: On Friday, 29 January 2016 at 09:00:52 UTC, qznc wrote: D is a broader language and is applicable in more situations. In many cases you don't care and don't want to care about memory management. Learning to manage memory in Rust takes lot of time and practice, it's a bit painful. I am

Re: D vs Rust

On Friday, 29 January 2016 at 15:39:53 UTC, bearophile wrote: D is also more flexible (higher order templates, better CTFE, unrestricted UFCS, etc), and you can port Python or C code to D faster than to Rust. So I think Rust targets a smaller number of coding purposes compared to D. Which

Re: D vs Rust

On Friday, 29 January 2016 at 12:05:08 UTC, Kagamin wrote: Actually less. Without RAII you can't bind any realistic C++ library like Qt. My understanding is that D has a lot of options for behavior similar to RAII, but it does not have the full capability. What would be the most important

Re: D vs Rust

On Friday, 29 January 2016 at 18:43:19 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: On 1/29/2016 7:39 AM, bearophile wrote: [...] Nice to see you back, bearophile! Having not been around here much myself recently, I didn't even realize he was away, but ... agree :-)

Re: D vs Rust

On 1/29/2016 7:39 AM, bearophile wrote: [...] Nice to see you back, bearophile!

Re: D vs Rust

On Friday, 29 January 2016 at 18:43:19 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: On 1/29/2016 7:39 AM, bearophile wrote: [...] Nice to see you back, bearophile! I don't why but I thought that Bearophile and Ketmar were the same person. Anyway, is good to see he's coming back. JohnCK.

Re: D vs Rust

On Thursday, 28 January 2016 at 22:30:51 UTC, nbro wrote: I have loved C++ when I first started learning it a pair of years ago (then I stopped for some time for some work reasons), and quite recently I have discovered D, which seems apparently a better language from the design point of view,

Re: D vs Rust

Am 29.01.2016 um 00:18 schrieb Ola Foaheim Grøstad: D is closer to C++ style templating and OO, and currently focus on enabling binding to non-template C++ libraries. Small correction: Should be "binding to template based C++ libraries" - non-template libraries have worked more or less for a

Re: D vs Rust

On Thursday, 28 January 2016 at 22:30:51 UTC, nbro wrote: other. Overall, which one has a better design and a more promising future? The long term future is "uncertain" for both I think. D depends on two people and Rust depends on Mozilla. C++ has much much wider backing. Rust is very

Re: D vs Rust

On Thursday, 28 January 2016 at 22:30:51 UTC, nbro wrote: [snip] Long discussion from last year: http://forum.dlang.org/thread/ckjukjfkgrguhfhkd...@forum.dlang.org

Re: D vs Rust

On Thursday, 28 January 2016 at 22:30:51 UTC, nbro wrote: I have loved C++ when I first started learning it a pair of years ago (then I stopped for some time for some work reasons), and quite recently I have discovered D, which seems apparently a better language from the design point of view,

D vs Rust

I have loved C++ when I first started learning it a pair of years ago (then I stopped for some time for some work reasons), and quite recently I have discovered D, which seems apparently a better language from the design point of view, especially in supporting OO design and modularisation,

Re: D vs Rust

On Thursday, 28 January 2016 at 22:30:51 UTC, nbro wrote: I have loved C++ when I first started learning it a pair of years ago (then I stopped for some time for some work reasons), and quite recently I have discovered D, which seems apparently a better language from the design point of view,

Re: D vs Rust

On Thursday, 28 January 2016 at 23:18:34 UTC, Ola Foaheim Grøstad wrote: D depends on two people I disagree with this. Even if Walter Bright and Andrei Alexandrescu both suddenly decided to go join the Amish tomorrow, D would go on. Just because D development is currently *controlled* by

Re: D vs Rust

On Thursday, 28 January 2016 at 23:43:24 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote: It is very difficult to predict what keeps online communities together after a crisis, or if they disband gradually, but Rust is just as vulnerable, if not more because of higher complexity. Who knows if Mozilla suddenly

Re: D vs Rust

On Thursday, 28 January 2016 at 23:28:04 UTC, tsbockman wrote: On Thursday, 28 January 2016 at 23:18:34 UTC, Ola Foaheim Grøstad wrote: D depends on two people I disagree with this. Even if Walter Bright and Andrei Alexandrescu both suddenly decided to go join the Amish tomorrow, D would go

Re: D vs Rust

On Thursday, 28 January 2016 at 23:28:04 UTC, tsbockman wrote: On Thursday, 28 January 2016 at 23:18:34 UTC, Ola Foaheim Grøstad wrote: D depends on two people I disagree with this. Even if Walter Bright and Andrei Alexandrescu both suddenly decided to go join the Amish tomorrow, D would go

Re: D vs Rust

On Thursday, 28 January 2016 at 22:30:51 UTC, nbro wrote: I have loved C++ when I first started learning it a pair of years ago (then I stopped for some time for some work reasons), and quite recently I have discovered D, which seems apparently a better language from the design point of view,

Re: D vs Rust: function signatures

On Wednesday, 30 April 2014 at 01:49:01 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote: On 4/29/2014 9:38 PM, Narrator wrote: fn map'r, B(self, f: |A|: 'r - B) - Map'r, A, B, Self That looks like line noise. Not if one is used to ML languages. Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. :)

Re: D vs Rust: function signatures

On Wednesday, 30 April 2014 at 01:38:46 UTC, Narrator wrote: The unbelievable amount of time and energy that's been spent discussing the smallest syntax, you would think that D would, at the very least, have better looking function signatures, but it doesn't. auto zip(Ranges...)(Ranges

Re: D vs Rust: function signatures

Nick Sabalausky: On 4/29/2014 9:38 PM, Narrator wrote: fn map'r, B(self, f: |A|: 'r - B) - Map'r, A, B, Self That looks like line noise. In D there is a lambda syntax: auto F = (in int x) = x ^^ 2; void main() { int y; auto G = (in int x) = x + y; pragma(msg, typeof(F));

Re: D vs Rust: function signatures

On 4/30/2014 3:26 AM, Paulo Pinto wrote: On Wednesday, 30 April 2014 at 01:49:01 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote: On 4/29/2014 9:38 PM, Narrator wrote: fn map'r, B(self, f: |A|: 'r - B) - Map'r, A, B, Self That looks like line noise. Not if one is used to ML languages. Beauty is in the eyes

Re: D vs Rust: function signatures

On 04/30/2014 04:04 AM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote: fn map'r, B(self, f: |A|: 'r - B) - Map'r, A, B, Self Same as points 1 and 3 above (D's version allows specifying multiple functions). Not sure what 'r or |A| means in Rust syntax, but I guess this would be the equivalent D syntax: auto

D vs Rust: function signatures

The unbelievable amount of time and energy that's been spent discussing the smallest syntax, you would think that D would, at the very least, have better looking function signatures, but it doesn't. auto zip(Ranges...)(Ranges ranges) if (Ranges.length allSatisfy!(isInputRange, Ranges));

Re: D vs Rust: function signatures

On 4/29/2014 9:38 PM, Narrator wrote: fn map'r, B(self, f: |A|: 'r - B) - Map'r, A, B, Self That looks like line noise.

Re: D vs Rust: function signatures

On Wednesday, 30 April 2014 at 01:38:46 UTC, Narrator wrote: The unbelievable amount of time and energy that's been spent discussing the smallest syntax, you would think that D would, at the very least, have better looking function signatures, but it doesn't. auto zip(Ranges...)(Ranges

Re: Flame bait: D vs. Rust vs. Go Benchmarking

On 07/26/2013 06:06 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote: I think his dictionary should use an unsigned byte instead of a signed byte. :-P One of the places where size_t being unsigned is important in an 8-bit environment. ;-) You have no idea how much delight I'm getting out of imagining Billy Connolly's

Re: Flame bait: D vs. Rust vs. Go Benchmarking

That could give the impression that Linus frequently /uses obscenity/ as a /method/, which would be very, very misleading. Zed Shaw also falls into this category. He is usually polite and civil during debates. However like Linus, he does sometimes throw around obscenity to express a

Re: Flame bait: D vs. Rust vs. Go Benchmarking

On Mon, 29 Jul 2013 19:47:30 +0200 Jonathan A Dunlap jdun...@outlook.com wrote: Simply I believe the people who have the most respect or fame in the industry need to be the most careful about their expression. I agree with that, but only because being well-known leads to a much higher

Re: Flame bait: D vs. Rust vs. Go Benchmarking

On 7/29/2013 1:31 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote: Blaming person X for that, famous or not, would be a ridiculous shifting of responsibilities on par with blaming some music band, or blaming JD Salinger, etc. A person, famous or not, cannot rationally be held responsible for what the masses of idiots

Re: Flame bait: D vs. Rust vs. Go Benchmarking

Blaming person X for that, famous or not, would be a ridiculous shifting of responsibilities == That said, it is also clear that in any organization, attitudes, tone and style flow from the top down. (It's amazing how pervasive this is.) Totally agree, I didn't mention blaming. Of course,

Re: Flame bait: D vs. Rust vs. Go Benchmarking

Not aimed at anyone in particular, but I see these kinds of statements all too often: Sure, I believe in free speech, but you can't let that guy say those things! I'm certainly not advocating censorship, but those books don't belong in the public library! That said, I pay the bills for this

Re: Flame bait: D vs. Rust vs. Go Benchmarking

On Mon, 29 Jul 2013 14:59:33 -0700 Walter Bright newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote: Not aimed at anyone in particular, but I see these kinds of statements all too often: Sure, I believe in free speech, but you can't let that guy say those things! I'm certainly not advocating censorship,

Re: Flame bait: D vs. Rust vs. Go Benchmarking

On 07/26/13 22:49, Walter Bright wrote: Jobs and Torvalds famously use(d) obscenity, and in fact being cussed out by either of those can be a perverse badge of honor. But I think those are exceptions, and their methods are not general license for others to use the same techniques. That

Re: Flame bait: D vs. Rust vs. Go Benchmarking

On Friday, 26 July 2013 at 05:10:55 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote: If you have an opinion on something that doesn't amount to it is good, then yes, you are seen by *many* people as being bad person who exhibits the sorts of ideas and beliefs that (slippery slope fallacy here) lead to atrocities

Re: Flame bait: D vs. Rust vs. Go Benchmarking

On Fri, 26 Jul 2013 09:55:05 +0200 Joseph Rushton Wakeling joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net wrote: On Friday, 26 July 2013 at 05:10:55 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote: If you have an opinion on something that doesn't amount to it is good, then yes, you are seen by *many* people as being bad

Re: Flame bait: D vs. Rust vs. Go Benchmarking

On Friday, 26 July 2013 at 08:42:10 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote: True, but the quoted examples from the Rust NG looked quite benign to me. If something as basic as that is deemed insulting or offensive, then that creates a chilling effect on the ability to express negative opinions. Yes, but

Re: Flame bait: D vs. Rust vs. Go Benchmarking

On Friday, 26 July 2013 at 10:09:10 UTC, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote: Yes, but you are someone who throws around swearwords very clearly. ... casually. Phone auto-correct is fun. :-P Incidentally, I think the censure on the Rust list was less because of the swearwords and more because of

Re: Flame bait: D vs. Rust vs. Go Benchmarking

On 07/26/13 06:57, Nick Sabalausky wrote: to be. To look at THOSE quotes above and claim that they're unacceptable *IS* to claim that merely voicing a distaste for something is unacceptable, because those quotes say nothing more than that. It's either an overreaction to the quotes, or it's

Re: Flame bait: D vs. Rust vs. Go Benchmarking

On Friday, 26 July 2013 at 01:48:36 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote: Not to slam Rust or the Rust people, but I wouldn't call that an example of class so much as new age nazi: where everything is incontrovertibly wonderful in it's own special way and any opinion contrary to that is categorically

Re: Flame bait: D vs. Rust vs. Go Benchmarking

On Friday, 26 July 2013 at 10:09:10 UTC, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote: Not everyone is so thick-skinned, though, and it can create a better collaborative environment if everyone tries to avoid swearwords and pejorative terms (which isn't the same as censoring negative opinions -- in my

Re: Flame bait: D vs. Rust vs. Go Benchmarking

On Friday, 26 July 2013 at 12:08:06 UTC, deadalnix wrote: You put the limit at the wrong place. It is ok to say that some piece of code is a shitty monstrosity, but ok to say that to someone. But you can also convey the same negative opinion about the code without using that kind of

Re: Flame bait: D vs. Rust vs. Go Benchmarking

But you can also convey the same negative opinion about the code without using that kind of language. If it makes it more likely the code author will take on board the criticism and react well to it, why not? It costs you much less to temper your language, than to deal with an offended or

Re: Flame bait: D vs. Rust vs. Go Benchmarking

On Friday, 26 July 2013 at 14:20:49 UTC, Craig Dillabaugh wrote: “Obscenity is the sign of a weak mind trying to express itself forcibly.” They say it's a sign of a limited vocabulary but I don't think that's true, because I know, oh, at least 127 different words and I still prefer fuck.

Re: Flame bait: D vs. Rust vs. Go Benchmarking

On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 04:41:05PM +0200, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote: On Friday, 26 July 2013 at 14:20:49 UTC, Craig Dillabaugh wrote: “Obscenity is the sign of a weak mind trying to express itself forcibly.” They say it's a sign of a limited vocabulary but I don't think that's true,

Re: Flame bait: D vs. Rust vs. Go Benchmarking

On Thursday, 25 July 2013 at 23:14:43 UTC, SomeDude wrote: Whatever miffs us, let's try to keep cool and show the same class that the Rust guys do here: https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/rust-dev/2013-July/004838.html Oh, and BTW, I really want to congrat them, they've been doing a great job

Re: Flame bait: D vs. Rust vs. Go Benchmarking

On Friday, 26 July 2013 at 04:58:06 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote: It's either an overreaction to the quotes, or it's whitewashing reality itself. There's nothing else in those quotes to take issue with unless we're so very immature that we can't even handle the word crap. Or maybe it's

Re: Flame bait: D vs. Rust vs. Go Benchmarking

On Friday, 26 July 2013 at 17:09:50 UTC, Jesse Phillips wrote: I'm not of the opinion this community needs a code of conduct. This group has many examples of harsh language both directed at code/projects and people. It results in community members to speak up against that language use, which

Re: Flame bait: D vs. Rust vs. Go Benchmarking

On 7/26/13 1:42 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote: On Fri, 26 Jul 2013 09:55:05 +0200 Joseph Rushton Wakelingjoseph.wakel...@webdrake.net wrote: On Friday, 26 July 2013 at 05:10:55 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote: If you have an opinion on something that doesn't amount to it is good, then yes, you are

Re: Flame bait: D vs. Rust vs. Go Benchmarking

On 7/26/2013 11:33 AM, SomeDude wrote: On Friday, 26 July 2013 at 17:09:50 UTC, Jesse Phillips wrote: I'm not of the opinion this community needs a code of conduct. This group has many examples of harsh language both directed at code/projects and people. It results in community members to speak

Re: Flame bait: D vs. Rust vs. Go Benchmarking

On 7/26/2013 7:20 AM, Craig Dillabaugh wrote: This discussion brought to my mind the quote (don't know who said it): “Obscenity is the sign of a weak mind trying to express itself forcibly.” It reminds me of something my lawyer told me: 1. If the law is on your side, argue the law. 2. If

Re: Flame bait: D vs. Rust vs. Go Benchmarking

On Fri, 26 Jul 2013 12:09:09 +0200 Joseph Rushton Wakeling joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net wrote: On Friday, 26 July 2013 at 08:42:10 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote: True, but the quoted examples from the Rust NG looked quite benign to me. If something as basic as that is deemed insulting or

Re: Flame bait: D vs. Rust vs. Go Benchmarking

On Thursday, 25 July 2013 at 00:09:40 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: On Thursday, July 25, 2013 01:29:04 John Colvin wrote: And @safe is automatically inferred (on templates only still?) when possible? I don't like where this is going... If you have code that you want to be explictly @system,

Re: Flame bait: D vs. Rust vs. Go Benchmarking

On Wednesday, 24 July 2013 at 11:32:17 UTC, bearophile wrote: Compiling with LDC2 I have found Xorshift about as fast as C rand :-) Minor point, but it may be worth checking the number of bits used in different languages' Xorshifts. For D the default is 128. If others use less (or more) they

Re: Flame bait: D vs. Rust vs. Go Benchmarking

On Thursday, 25 July 2013 at 00:09:40 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: On Thursday, July 25, 2013 01:29:04 John Colvin wrote: And @safe is automatically inferred (on templates only still?) when possible? I don't like where this is going... If you have code that you want to be explictly @system,

Re: Flame bait: D vs. Rust vs. Go Benchmarking

On Thursday, 25 July 2013 at 10:00:53 UTC, John Colvin wrote: On Thursday, 25 July 2013 at 00:09:40 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: On Thursday, July 25, 2013 01:29:04 John Colvin wrote: And @safe is automatically inferred (on templates only still?) when possible? I don't like where this is

Re: Flame bait: D vs. Rust vs. Go Benchmarking

On Thursday, 25 July 2013 at 08:13:07 UTC, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote: On Wednesday, 24 July 2013 at 11:32:17 UTC, bearophile wrote: Compiling with LDC2 I have found Xorshift about as fast as C rand :-) Minor point, but it may be worth checking the number of bits used in different

Re: Flame bait: D vs. Rust vs. Go Benchmarking

On Thursday, 25 July 2013 at 10:34:56 UTC, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote: Just checked the code ... not thoroughly enough. D.d in the GitHub repo is using the same handwritten 32-bit Xorshift as the C and Go code.

Re: Flame bait: D vs. Rust vs. Go Benchmarking

On Thursday, 25 July 2013 at 10:52:58 UTC, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote: On Thursday, 25 July 2013 at 10:34:56 UTC, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote: Just checked the code ... not thoroughly enough. D.d in the GitHub repo is using the same handwritten 32-bit Xorshift as the C and Go code. Is

Re: Flame bait: D vs. Rust vs. Go Benchmarking

On Thursday, July 25, 2013 08:56:40 monarch_dodra wrote: On Thursday, 25 July 2013 at 00:09:40 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: On Thursday, July 25, 2013 01:29:04 John Colvin wrote: And @safe is automatically inferred (on templates only still?) when possible? I don't like where this is

Re: Flame bait: D vs. Rust vs. Go Benchmarking

On Thursday, 25 July 2013 at 11:42:10 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: On Thursday, July 25, 2013 08:56:40 monarch_dodra wrote: On Thursday, 25 July 2013 at 00:09:40 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: On Thursday, July 25, 2013 01:29:04 John Colvin wrote: And @safe is automatically inferred (on

Re: Flame bait: D vs. Rust vs. Go Benchmarking

On Thursday, 25 July 2013 at 11:22:47 UTC, monarch_dodra wrote: Is this a big problem performance wise though? I mean, the bug was *only* that the first few iteration were not so random, is this correct? This fix didn't really change the computational cost of the operation, did it? Re the

Re: Flame bait: D vs. Rust vs. Go Benchmarking

On Jul 25, 2013 1:10 AM, Jonathan M Davis jmdavisp...@gmx.com wrote: On Thursday, July 25, 2013 01:29:04 John Colvin wrote: And @safe is automatically inferred (on templates only still?) when possible? I don't like where this is going... If you have code that you want to be explictly

Re: Flame bait: D vs. Rust vs. Go Benchmarking

On Wednesday, 24 July 2013 at 06:20:11 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: On 7/23/13 9:23 PM, Walter Bright wrote: reddit link: http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1ixnf6/benchmarking_roguelike_level_generation_go_rust/ Please post your comment here to Reddit! Did. I tried to provide

Re: Flame bait: D vs. Rust vs. Go Benchmarking

On Fri, 26 Jul 2013 01:14:42 +0200 SomeDude lovelyd...@mailmetrash.com wrote: On Wednesday, 24 July 2013 at 06:20:11 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: On 7/23/13 9:23 PM, Walter Bright wrote: reddit link:

Re: Flame bait: D vs. Rust vs. Go Benchmarking

On 7/25/2013 6:48 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote: Not to slam Rust or the Rust people, but I wouldn't call that an example of class so much as new age nazi: where everything is incontrovertibly wonderful in it's own special way and any opinion contrary to that is categorically invalid and not to be

Re: Flame bait: D vs. Rust vs. Go Benchmarking

On Friday, 26 July 2013 at 02:51:57 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: On 7/25/2013 6:48 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote: Not to slam Rust or the Rust people, but I wouldn't call that an example of class so much as new age nazi: where everything is incontrovertibly wonderful in it's own special way and any

  1   2   >