Re: My choice to pick Go over D ( and Rust ), mostly non-technical

On 2/6/2018 1:51 AM, Atila Neves wrote: I tried Warp on a non-trivial C codebase. It didn't work (by which I mean the code wouldn't compile with it). I don't know how clang managed to build a (for all practical purposes I can see) bug-compatible preprocessor from scratch to gcc, but it did and

Re: My choice to pick Go over D ( and Rust ), mostly non-technical

On Thursday, 8 February 2018 at 17:24:31 UTC, Ralph Doncaster wrote: On Thursday, 8 February 2018 at 15:59:28 UTC, Nicholas Wilson wrote: On Wednesday, 7 February 2018 at 15:16:46 UTC, Ralph Doncaster wrote: On Wednesday, 7 February 2018 at 15:10:36 UTC, Ralph Doncaster wrote: On Wednesday, 7

Re: My choice to pick Go over D ( and Rust ), mostly non-technical

On Thursday, 8 February 2018 at 15:59:28 UTC, Nicholas Wilson wrote: On Wednesday, 7 February 2018 at 15:16:46 UTC, Ralph Doncaster wrote: On Wednesday, 7 February 2018 at 15:10:36 UTC, Ralph Doncaster wrote: On Wednesday, 7 February 2018 at 08:05:46 UTC, Nicholas Wilson wrote: For OpenCL I

Re: My choice to pick Go over D ( and Rust ), mostly non-technical

On Wednesday, 7 February 2018 at 15:16:46 UTC, Ralph Doncaster wrote: On Wednesday, 7 February 2018 at 15:10:36 UTC, Ralph Doncaster wrote: On Wednesday, 7 February 2018 at 08:05:46 UTC, Nicholas Wilson wrote: For OpenCL I develop and maintain DCompute: http://code.dlang.org/packages/dcompute

Re: My choice to pick Go over D ( and Rust ), mostly non-technical

On Wednesday, 7 February 2018 at 15:10:36 UTC, Ralph Doncaster wrote: On Wednesday, 7 February 2018 at 08:05:46 UTC, Nicholas Wilson wrote: For OpenCL I develop and maintain DCompute: http://code.dlang.org/packages/dcompute https://github.com/libmir/dcompute It has a much beautified interface

Re: My choice to pick Go over D ( and Rust ), mostly non-technical

On Wednesday, 7 February 2018 at 08:05:46 UTC, Nicholas Wilson wrote: On Tuesday, 6 February 2018 at 20:25:22 UTC, Ralph Doncaster wrote: I, like you, may end up jumping off the ship though. I've done a bit of work with golang before, so maybe I'll take another look at it. The opencl

Re: My choice to pick Go over D ( and Rust ), mostly non-technical

On Tuesday, 6 February 2018 at 20:25:22 UTC, Ralph Doncaster wrote: Thanks for the detailed post. I'm an old C/C++ guy (got started with C++ back in the cfront days), and have been kicking the tires on D recently. The poor state of libraries is something that may push me away from D as well.

Re: My choice to pick Go over D ( and Rust ), mostly non-technical

On Wednesday, 7 February 2018 at 06:29:01 UTC, Boris-Barboris wrote: On Tuesday, 6 February 2018 at 23:08:48 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote: Apparently, GDC folks do not populate builtin module, so there's no easy way to look check it, besides actually trying to compile:

Re: My choice to pick Go over D ( and Rust ), mostly non-technical

On Tuesday, 6 February 2018 at 23:08:48 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote: Apparently, GDC folks do not populate builtin module, so there's no easy way to look check it, besides actually trying to compile:

Re: My choice to pick Go over D ( and Rust ), mostly non-technical

On Tuesday, 6 February 2018 at 23:08:48 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote: Oh, look: https://github.com/ldc-developers/druntime/blob/7b77937c70b4aba720e98727dcaad3323c29bd8d/src/ldc/intrinsics.di#L579-L587 — David Not gcc, no platforms, BEBEBEBEBEBE. On the serious note: nice, good to see.

Re: My choice to pick Go over D ( and Rust ), mostly non-technical

On Tuesday, 6 February 2018 at 21:44:16 UTC, Ralph Doncaster wrote: Is there an automatic way to make D wrappers for all the C function calls? Yeah, I hear the dstep https://github.com/jacob-carlborg/dstep works well, though I haven't personally used it - I just bring in C functions by hand

Re: My choice to pick Go over D ( and Rust ), mostly non-technical

On Tuesday, 6 February 2018 at 23:08:48 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote: On Monday, 5 February 2018 at 22:02:09 UTC, Boris-Barboris wrote: Oh, and look what I just found: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/26179 Oh, look:

Re: My choice to pick Go over D ( and Rust ), mostly non-technical

On Monday, 5 February 2018 at 22:02:09 UTC, Boris-Barboris wrote: Oh, and look what I just found: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/26179 Oh, look: https://github.com/ldc-developers/druntime/blob/7b77937c70b4aba720e98727dcaad3323c29bd8d/src/ldc/intrinsics.di#L579-L587 — David

Re: My choice to pick Go over D ( and Rust ), mostly non-technical

On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 09:44:16PM +, Ralph Doncaster via Digitalmars-d wrote: [...] > Although I'm new to D, I do know crypto quite well, and especially > sha3/keccak. One reason I considered porting was to see if dmd outputs > better code than gcc. On x86_64 with the xmm registers there

Re: My choice to pick Go over D ( and Rust ), mostly non-technical

On Tuesday, 6 February 2018 at 21:44:16 UTC, Ralph Doncaster wrote: Is there an automatic way to make D wrappers for all the C function calls? https://github.com/jacob-carlborg/dstep

Re: My choice to pick Go over D ( and Rust ), mostly non-technical

On 2018-02-06 10:51, Atila Neves wrote: I tried Warp on a non-trivial C codebase. It didn't work (by which I mean the code wouldn't compile with it). I don't know how clang managed to build a (for all practical purposes I can see) bug-compatible preprocessor from scratch to gcc, but it did

Re: My choice to pick Go over D ( and Rust ), mostly non-technical

On Tuesday, February 06, 2018 21:44:16 Ralph Doncaster via Digitalmars-d wrote: > One reason I considered porting was to > see if dmd outputs better code than gcc. It almost certainly won't. dmd compiles code lightning fast and has a decent optimizer, but it's really not on par with gcc or

Re: My choice to pick Go over D ( and Rust ), mostly non-technical

On Tuesday, 6 February 2018 at 20:55:31 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: On Tuesday, 6 February 2018 at 20:25:22 UTC, Ralph Doncaster wrote: The opencl package in dub is a crude wrapper around the original C API. I couldn't find any sha lib, so I've started porting a reference sha3 implementation

Re: My choice to pick Go over D ( and Rust ), mostly non-technical

On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 08:55:31PM +, Adam D. Ruppe via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On Tuesday, 6 February 2018 at 20:25:22 UTC, Ralph Doncaster wrote: > > The opencl package in dub is a crude wrapper around the original C > > API. I couldn't find any sha lib, so I've started porting a > >

Re: My choice to pick Go over D ( and Rust ), mostly non-technical

On Tuesday, 6 February 2018 at 20:25:22 UTC, Ralph Doncaster wrote: The opencl package in dub is a crude wrapper around the original C API. I couldn't find any sha lib, so I've started porting a reference sha3 implementation from C. Don't port libraries like that, just call them directly.

Re: My choice to pick Go over D ( and Rust ), mostly non-technical

On Friday, 2 February 2018 at 15:06:35 UTC, Benny wrote: I am sure there will be lots of opinions regarding this post but its suffice to say that my decision to go with Go ( no pun intended ) is finally. I hope this final post is some indication of the issues that have plagued my decision

Re: My choice to pick Go over D ( and Rust ), mostly non-technical

On Monday, 5 February 2018 at 22:56:47 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: On Monday, February 05, 2018 18:54:32 John Gabriele via Digitalmars-d wrote: What is the specific purpose of -betterC? I see from that it's (A) useful when targeting constrained

Re: My choice to pick Go over D ( and Rust ), mostly non-technical

On Monday, 5 February 2018 at 20:12:09 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: On 2/5/2018 12:06 AM, Boris-Barboris wrote: I think that would be most logical thing to have, but that would also imply preprocessor, or at least it's restricted subset, wich you most probably though about as well. Sure. I

Re: My choice to pick Go over D ( and Rust ), mostly non-technical

On Tuesday, 6 February 2018 at 02:31:42 UTC, psychoticRabbit wrote: Plenty of others seems to have a different opinion ;-) That's just my opinion. My generation has plenty of C++ programmers, but I have no acquaintance who does userspace C. I would never do that too, unless forced to work

Re: My choice to pick Go over D ( and Rust ), mostly non-technical

On Monday, 5 February 2018 at 23:42:18 UTC, welkam wrote: There is PGO (Profile Guided Optimization) that can do that without additional language extensions. You need to find better example to support your claims. It is sometimes impossible. Some parts of the Linux kernel cannot be profiled

Re: My choice to pick Go over D ( and Rust ), mostly non-technical

On Monday, 5 February 2018 at 16:03:44 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote: On Monday, 5 February 2018 at 12:23:58 UTC, psychoticRabbit wrote: No. C++ is primarliy about higher order abstractions. That's why it came about. Without the need for those higher order abstractions, C is just fine - no

Re: My choice to pick Go over D ( and Rust ), mostly non-technical

On Monday, 5 February 2018 at 22:02:09 UTC, Boris-Barboris wrote: I am of the opinion that currently C has no use outside of OS\embedded stuff Plenty of others seems to have a different opinion ;-) https://github.com/kozross/awesome-c (and that link is just for starters)

Re: My choice to pick Go over D ( and Rust ), mostly non-technical

On Monday, 5 February 2018 at 20:12:09 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: much of it seems to be a replacement for the inline assembler, and D has a nice inline assembler. Inline assembler is not portable and limits optimizing compilers ability to optimize your code. Also assembler is bad at

Re: My choice to pick Go over D ( and Rust ), mostly non-technical

On Monday, 5 February 2018 at 22:02:09 UTC, Boris-Barboris wrote: "Here is a one-liner wich may make your condition statements faster, if you use it right. There is PGO (Profile Guided Optimization) that can do that without additional language extensions. You need to find better example to

Re: My choice to pick Go over D ( and Rust ), mostly non-technical

On Monday, February 05, 2018 18:54:32 John Gabriele via Digitalmars-d wrote: > What is the specific purpose of -betterC? I see from > that it's (A) useful when > targeting constrained environments, and (B) for easier embedding > of D libraries into larger

Re: My choice to pick Go over D ( and Rust ), mostly non-technical

On Monday, 5 February 2018 at 20:12:09 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: Most of those gcc builtin's I've never heard of, and I've been programming C for 35 years now. I've also never had a use for them. I find it hard to believe that list would be a deal breaker, especially since much of it seems to

Re: My choice to pick Go over D ( and Rust ), mostly non-technical

On 2/5/2018 12:06 AM, Boris-Barboris wrote: I think that would be most logical thing to have, but that would also imply preprocessor, or at least it's restricted subset, wich you most probably though about as well. Sure. I could use the Boost licensed preprocessor in DMC, or the Boost

Re: My choice to pick Go over D ( and Rust ), mostly non-technical

On Sunday, 4 February 2018 at 11:14:43 UTC, JN wrote: On Friday, 2 February 2018 at 15:06:35 UTC, Benny wrote: You want to produce PDFs? fpdf 2015-Apr-06, a very limited PDF generation tool last updated 3 years go. While not as trivial as just using a dub package, D easy interop with C

Re: My choice to pick Go over D ( and Rust ), mostly non-technical

On Monday, 5 February 2018 at 12:23:58 UTC, psychoticRabbit wrote: No. C++ is primarliy about higher order abstractions. That's why it came about. Without the need for those higher order abstractions, C is just fine - no need for C++ Actually, many programmers switched to C++ in the 90s just

Re: My choice to pick Go over D ( and Rust ), mostly non-technical

On Monday, 5 February 2018 at 01:38:13 UTC, psychoticRabbit wrote: On Sunday, 4 February 2018 at 20:15:47 UTC, bpr wrote: Which benefits of C are lost? The ability to program on 16-bit platforms (yeah.. they still exist ;-) Thanks, that's a good answer! I did put a bit of effort in

Re: My choice to pick Go over D ( and Rust ), mostly non-technical

On Monday, 5 February 2018 at 12:41:29 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote: On 2018-02-05 06:28, Walter Bright wrote: True, D cannot directly read .h files. There are tools, though, to convert C .h files to D. I have thought about building this into D many times, especially since the Digital Mars C

Re: My choice to pick Go over D ( and Rust ), mostly non-technical

On Sun, 2018-02-04 at 20:15 +, bpr via Digitalmars-d wrote: > > […] > Maybe, Rust is a decent language, and it appears to be getting > better faster than D is. I recall the announcement of an > experimental precise GC for D in 2013 or so, and Andrei at the > time made it clear that a

Re: My choice to pick Go over D ( and Rust ), mostly non-technical

On 2018-02-05 06:28, Walter Bright wrote: True, D cannot directly read .h files. There are tools, though, to convert C .h files to D. I have thought about building this into D many times, especially since the Digital Mars C compiler is now available since it is Boost licensed. I did that

Re: My choice to pick Go over D ( and Rust ), mostly non-technical

On Monday, 5 February 2018 at 11:38:58 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote: On Monday, 5 February 2018 at 11:25:15 UTC, psychoticRabbit wrote: C is for trusting the programmer, so that they can do anything. It's also for keeping things fast - *even if not portable*. C++ is the same... No. C++

Re: My choice to pick Go over D ( and Rust ), mostly non-technical

On Monday, 5 February 2018 at 11:25:15 UTC, psychoticRabbit wrote: C is for trusting the programmer, so that they can do anything. It's also for keeping things fast - *even if not portable*. C++ is the same... Last but not least, C is for keeping things small, and simple. Yes, it takes

Re: My choice to pick Go over D ( and Rust ), mostly non-technical

On Monday, 5 February 2018 at 10:23:23 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote: On Monday, 5 February 2018 at 08:06:16 UTC, Boris-Barboris wrote: I have no doubt it can be done in the end. I solely imply that the disadvantage here is that in C's "main" (imo) use case it has to be done, and that is a

Re: My choice to pick Go over D ( and Rust ), mostly non-technical

On Saturday, 3 February 2018 at 01:52:04 UTC, psychoticRabbit wrote: On Friday, 2 February 2018 at 15:06:35 UTC, Benny wrote: [...] I think that point hits the cause of your problem with D (along with your need to 'choose' something over 'something' else). [...] I think it is worth

Re: My choice to pick Go over D ( and Rust ), mostly non-technical

On Monday, 5 February 2018 at 08:06:16 UTC, Boris-Barboris wrote: I have no doubt it can be done in the end. I solely imply that the disadvantage here is that in C's "main" (imo) use case it has to be done, and that is a thing to be concerned about when picking a language. Yes, the wheels

Re: My choice to pick Go over D ( and Rust ), mostly non-technical

On Monday, 5 February 2018 at 05:28:54 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: True, D cannot directly read .h files. There are tools, though, to convert C .h files to D. 'Tools' sounds very capritious, but I have no experience with such things. I somehow doubt things like SWIG will work ok on kernel

Re: My choice to pick Go over D ( and Rust ), mostly non-technical

On Monday, 5 February 2018 at 07:46:46 UTC, Dgame wrote: On Monday, 5 February 2018 at 00:56:20 UTC, welkam wrote: On Sunday, 4 February 2018 at 22:05:45 UTC, Dgame wrote: I want to use a language and if I see problems which are ignored I move on. That is how it is, no offense. So you see a

Re: My choice to pick Go over D ( and Rust ), mostly non-technical

On Monday, 5 February 2018 at 00:56:20 UTC, welkam wrote: On Sunday, 4 February 2018 at 22:05:45 UTC, Dgame wrote: I want to use a language and if I see problems which are ignored I move on. That is how it is, no offense. So you see a problem and do not work on fixing it then complain that

Re: My choice to pick Go over D ( and Rust ), mostly non-technical

On Friday, 2 February 2018 at 15:06:35 UTC, Benny wrote: You want to produce Excel's? Excel-d but it faces the same issue as being the only native project. What if the author ... Since you mention this, there isn't just single author of excel-d. If something happened to me, most likely

Re: My choice to pick Go over D ( and Rust ), mostly non-technical

On 2/4/2018 2:27 PM, Boris-Barboris wrote: Ability to interface with C using C header files of a target library\executable as-is. Being able to understand the interfaces your operating system provides, described on the language it uses, is a huge criteria to pick C for your particular task.

Re: My choice to pick Go over D ( and Rust ), mostly non-technical

On Sunday, 4 February 2018 at 20:15:47 UTC, bpr wrote: Which benefits of C are lost? The ability to program on 16-bit platforms (yeah.. they still exist ;-) 16bit doesn't matter? .. it matters to me.

Re: My choice to pick Go over D ( and Rust ), mostly non-technical

On Sunday, 4 February 2018 at 22:05:45 UTC, Dgame wrote: I want to use a language and if I see problems which are ignored I move on. That is how it is, no offense. So you see a problem and do not work on fixing it then complain that other people do the same. Ok.

Re: My choice to pick Go over D ( and Rust ), mostly non-technical

On 2/4/2018 12:15 PM, bpr wrote: Personally I agree that BetterC isn't a good alternative for C programmers. Sure, you get some benefits of D, but you will lose many benefits of C Which benefits of C are lost? I'll chime in a bit on that. I recently converted the Digital Mars C++ front end

Re: My choice to pick Go over D ( and Rust ), mostly non-technical

On Sunday, 4 February 2018 at 20:15:47 UTC, bpr wrote: Which benefits of C are lost? Ability to interface with C using C header files of a target library\executable as-is. Being able to understand the interfaces your operating system provides, described on the language it uses, is a huge

Re: My choice to pick Go over D ( and Rust ), mostly non-technical

On Sunday, 4 February 2018 at 12:02:25 UTC, psychoticRabbit wrote: On Sunday, 4 February 2018 at 10:31:17 UTC, Dgame wrote: On Sunday, 4 February 2018 at 01:46:34 UTC, psychoticRabbit wrote: Your suggestions are welcome. Just don't tell people that if they don't listen to them, then their

Re: My choice to pick Go over D ( and Rust ), mostly non-technical

On Sunday, 4 February 2018 at 11:14:43 UTC, JN wrote: On Friday, 2 February 2018 at 15:06:35 UTC, Benny wrote: You want to produce PDFs? fpdf 2015-Apr-06, a very limited PDF generation tool last updated 3 years go. While not as trivial as just using a dub package, D easy interop with C

Re: My choice to pick Go over D ( and Rust ), mostly non-technical

On Sunday, 4 February 2018 at 10:31:17 UTC, Dgame wrote: On Sunday, 4 February 2018 at 01:46:34 UTC, psychoticRabbit wrote: Your suggestions are welcome. Just don't tell people that if they don't listen to them, then their community is bad. That's not how an open source community works. I've

Re: My choice to pick Go over D ( and Rust ), mostly non-technical

On Friday, 2 February 2018 at 15:06:35 UTC, Benny wrote: You want to produce PDFs? fpdf 2015-Apr-06, a very limited PDF generation tool last updated 3 years go. While not as trivial as just using a dub package, D easy interop with C means you can use C libraries for PDF like libharu or w/e.

Re: My choice to pick Go over D ( and Rust ), mostly non-technical

On Sunday, 4 February 2018 at 01:46:34 UTC, psychoticRabbit wrote: Your suggestions are welcome. Just don't tell people that if they don't listen to them, then their community is bad. That's not how an open source community works. I've never said that the community is bad. :)

Re: My choice to pick Go over D ( and Rust ), mostly non-technical

On Saturday, 3 February 2018 at 23:45:21 UTC, bachmeier wrote: On Saturday, 3 February 2018 at 23:39:00 UTC, Dgame wrote: On Saturday, 3 February 2018 at 23:29:58 UTC, Christof Schardt wrote: On Saturday, 3 February 2018 at 22:59:06 UTC, Dgame wrote: I congratulate you on your decision. I also

Re: My choice to pick Go over D ( and Rust ), mostly non-technical

On Sunday, 4 February 2018 at 01:57:26 UTC, Rubn wrote: On Saturday, 3 February 2018 at 23:07:30 UTC, Norm wrote: On Saturday, 3 February 2018 at 15:22:37 UTC, Rubn wrote: On Saturday, 3 February 2018 at 08:18:57 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote: On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 08:16:25PM -0800, Walter Bright

Re: My choice to pick Go over D ( and Rust ), mostly non-technical

On Sunday, 4 February 2018 at 01:57:26 UTC, Rubn wrote: I would prefer to have one compiler that is being worked on than having split effort for 3 different compilers when larger communities only have 1 compiler. There is very little split effort. The way this actually works is there's one D

Re: My choice to pick Go over D ( and Rust ), mostly non-technical

On Saturday, 3 February 2018 at 23:07:30 UTC, Norm wrote: On Saturday, 3 February 2018 at 15:22:37 UTC, Rubn wrote: On Saturday, 3 February 2018 at 08:18:57 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote: On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 08:16:25PM -0800, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d wrote: On 2/2/2018 7:06 AM, Benny

Re: My choice to pick Go over D ( and Rust ), mostly non-technical

On Saturday, 3 February 2018 at 22:59:06 UTC, Dgame wrote: This is a nice, refreshing post. You state problems and why you switched to Go. You give a ton of informations (here and in your prior posts) why you did what you did and what problems you've seen. This could be used to improve D. But

Re: My choice to pick Go over D ( and Rust ), mostly non-technical

On Saturday, 3 February 2018 at 23:37:43 UTC, Dgame wrote: On Saturday, 3 February 2018 at 23:25:09 UTC, welkam wrote: On Saturday, 3 February 2018 at 22:59:06 UTC, Dgame wrote: This could be used to improve D So when will you start working on issues he described? And when will you? I

Re: My choice to pick Go over D ( and Rust ), mostly non-technical

On Saturday, 3 February 2018 at 23:39:00 UTC, Dgame wrote: On Saturday, 3 February 2018 at 23:29:58 UTC, Christof Schardt wrote: On Saturday, 3 February 2018 at 22:59:06 UTC, Dgame wrote: I congratulate you on your decision. I also changed to another language and I've never regretted it. Which

Re: My choice to pick Go over D ( and Rust ), mostly non-technical

On Saturday, 3 February 2018 at 23:25:09 UTC, welkam wrote: On Saturday, 3 February 2018 at 22:59:06 UTC, Dgame wrote: This could be used to improve D So when will you start working on issues he described? And when will you? I already tried in the past as you can see.

Re: My choice to pick Go over D ( and Rust ), mostly non-technical

On Saturday, 3 February 2018 at 23:29:58 UTC, Christof Schardt wrote: On Saturday, 3 February 2018 at 22:59:06 UTC, Dgame wrote: I congratulate you on your decision. I also changed to another language and I've never regretted it. Which is...? (just out of curiousity, btw I'm currently watching

Re: My choice to pick Go over D ( and Rust ), mostly non-technical

On Saturday, 3 February 2018 at 22:59:06 UTC, Dgame wrote: I congratulate you on your decision. I also changed to another language and I've never regretted it. Which is...? (just out of curiousity, btw I'm currently watching nim, after long years monitoring D and buying every book)

Re: My choice to pick Go over D ( and Rust ), mostly non-technical

On Saturday, 3 February 2018 at 22:59:06 UTC, Dgame wrote: This could be used to improve D So when will you start working on issues he described?

Re: My choice to pick Go over D ( and Rust ), mostly non-technical

On Saturday, 3 February 2018 at 15:22:37 UTC, Rubn wrote: On Saturday, 3 February 2018 at 08:18:57 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote: On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 08:16:25PM -0800, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d wrote: On 2/2/2018 7:06 AM, Benny wrote: > Other languages have slogans, they have selling points.

Re: My choice to pick Go over D ( and Rust ), mostly non-technical

This is a nice, refreshing post. You state problems and why you switched to Go. You give a ton of informations (here and in your prior posts) why you did what you did and what problems you've seen. This could be used to improve D. But the regular reply you will get if you criticize D even a

Re: My choice to pick Go over D ( and Rust ), mostly non-technical

On Saturday, 3 February 2018 at 08:18:57 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote: On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 08:16:25PM -0800, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d wrote: On 2/2/2018 7:06 AM, Benny wrote: > Other languages have slogans, they have selling points. > > When i hear Go, you hear uniformal, fast, simple

Re: My choice to pick Go over D ( and Rust ), mostly non-technical

On Saturday, 3 February 2018 at 04:16:25 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: On 2/2/2018 7:06 AM, Benny wrote: Other languages have slogans, they have selling points. When i hear Go, you hear uniformal, fast, simple syntax language. When i hear Rust, you hear safe, manual memory management. When i

Re: My choice to pick Go over D ( and Rust ), mostly non-technical

On Saturday, 3 February 2018 at 04:16:25 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: On 2/2/2018 7:06 AM, Benny wrote: Other languages have slogans, they have selling points. When i hear Go, you hear uniformal, fast, simple syntax language. When i hear Rust, you hear safe, manual memory management. When i

Re: My choice to pick Go over D ( and Rust ), mostly non-technical

On Saturday, 3 February 2018 at 10:55:41 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote: On Saturday, 3 February 2018 at 06:15:31 UTC, Joakim wrote: Software evolves. It isn't designed. The only question is how strictly you _control_ the evolution, and how open you are to external sources of mutations.

Re: My choice to pick Go over D ( and Rust ), mostly non-technical

On Saturday, 3 February 2018 at 06:15:31 UTC, Joakim wrote: Software evolves. It isn't designed. The only question is how strictly you _control_ the evolution, and how open you are to external sources of mutations. Unix was designed... and was based on a more ambitious design (Multics).

Re: My choice to pick Go over D ( and Rust ), mostly non-technical

On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 08:16:25PM -0800, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On 2/2/2018 7:06 AM, Benny wrote: > > Other languages have slogans, they have selling points. > > > > When i hear Go, you hear uniformal, fast, simple syntax language. > > When i hear Rust, you hear safe, manual

Re: My choice to pick Go over D ( and Rust ), mostly non-technical

On Saturday, 3 February 2018 at 01:52:04 UTC, psychoticRabbit wrote: On Friday, 2 February 2018 at 15:06:35 UTC, Benny wrote: I am personally confused with D's message. I think that point hits the cause of your problem with D (along with your need to 'choose' something over 'something'

Re: My choice to pick Go over D ( and Rust ), mostly non-technical

On 2/2/2018 7:06 AM, Benny wrote: Other languages have slogans, they have selling points. When i hear Go, you hear uniformal, fast, simple syntax language. When i hear Rust, you hear safe, manual memory management. When i hear D, you hear ... ... ... ... Fast code,

Re: My choice to pick Go over D ( and Rust ), mostly non-technical

On Friday, 2 February 2018 at 15:06:35 UTC, Benny wrote: Other languages have slogans, they have selling points. When i hear Go, you hear uniformal, fast, simple syntax language. When i hear Rust, you hear safe, manual memory management. When i hear D, you hear ... ... ... ... When i hear

Re: My choice to pick Go over D ( and Rust ), mostly non-technical

On Friday, 2 February 2018 at 15:06:35 UTC, Benny wrote: I am personally confused with D's message. I think that point hits the cause of your problem with D (along with your need to 'choose' something over 'something' else). Stop looking for the meaning of D .. and start experiencing it.

Re: My choice to pick Go over D ( and Rust ), mostly non-technical

On Saturday, 3 February 2018 at 00:11:06 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: On Friday, 2 February 2018 at 23:49:14 UTC, aberba wrote: It appears most core contributors are not into networking or web services so they may not see it as a blocker. I do tons of HTTP stuff in D; to me it is a solved

Re: My choice to pick Go over D ( and Rust ), mostly non-technical

On Friday, 2 February 2018 at 23:49:14 UTC, aberba wrote: It appears most core contributors are not into networking or web services so they may not see it as a blocker. I do tons of HTTP stuff in D; to me it is a solved problem. Though I haven't implemented http2 since I don't need it; http

Re: My choice to pick Go over D ( and Rust ), mostly non-technical

On Friday, 2 February 2018 at 23:49:14 UTC, aberba wrote: On Friday, 2 February 2018 at 21:09:20 UTC, Rubn wrote: [...] D can equally do HTTP in whatever way Go does it. It appears most core contributors are not into networking or web services so they may not see it as a blocker. Its more

Re: My choice to pick Go over D ( and Rust ), mostly non-technical

On Friday, 2 February 2018 at 21:09:20 UTC, Rubn wrote: On Friday, 2 February 2018 at 15:06:35 UTC, Benny wrote: HTTP: If you are focusing on Http then yah Go is probably the better choice, it looks like it is entire geared towards http development. I wouldn't use D for http just like I

Re: My choice to pick Go over D ( and Rust ), mostly non-technical

When i hear Go, you hear uniformal, fast, simple syntax language. When i hear Rust, you hear safe, manual memory management. When i hear D, you hear ... ... ... ... I usually hear awesome meta-programming and ranges. I think D community had put lot of effort in making these things work

Re: My choice to pick Go over D ( and Rust ), mostly non-technical

On Friday, 2 February 2018 at 15:06:35 UTC, Benny wrote: HTTP: If you are focusing on Http then yah Go is probably the better choice, it looks like it is entire geared towards http development. I wouldn't use D for http just like I wouldn't use C++ for http.

Re: My choice to pick Go over D ( and Rust ), mostly non-technical

On 2/2/18 1:38 PM, welkam wrote: On Friday, 2 February 2018 at 15:06:35 UTC, Benny wrote: ** Wall of text ** I dont post here often but... Most of what you complain is known already and/or not entirely correct. People who work on D are not some glue sniffing brain dead individuals that are

Re: My choice to pick Go over D ( and Rust ), mostly non-technical

On Friday, 2 February 2018 at 15:06:35 UTC, Benny wrote: HTTP: D has no default HTTP server. So you need to rely on vibe.d. Vibe.d being a external package that then relies on a few people to maintain it. D has no future proof HTTP. There is currently no official http2 build in to vibe.d.

Re: My choice to pick Go over D ( and Rust ), mostly non-technical

On Friday, 2 February 2018 at 15:06:35 UTC, Benny wrote: ** Wall of text ** I dont post here often but... Most of what you complain is known already and/or not entirely correct. People who work on D are not some glue sniffing brain dead individuals that are incapable of understanding that

Re: My choice to pick Go over D ( and Rust ), mostly non-technical

On Friday, 2 February 2018 at 17:24:47 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote: On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 05:01:58PM +, bachmeier via Digitalmars-d wrote: [...] The things you want - a perfect out-of-the-box Windows experience, where you can make requests for others to do the things you want - is not what D

Re: My choice to pick Go over D ( and Rust ), mostly non-technical

On Friday, 2 February 2018 at 15:06:35 UTC, Benny wrote: [snip] D is a fantastic language. If I can derive some gist from OP, we need high quality libraries for people to use. There are two things here: libraries (of) high quality (features, performance, stability) Most of the stated

Re: My choice to pick Go over D ( and Rust ), mostly non-technical

On Friday, 2 February 2018 at 15:06:35 UTC, Benny wrote: 75. Go 69. .Net 67. Rust 64. Pascal < This one surprised even me. 63. Crystal 60. D 55. Swift 51. Kotlin It is interesting that you took the time to score different languages, but of course, there probably are a lot languages or

Re: My choice to pick Go over D ( and Rust ), mostly non-technical

On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 05:01:58PM +, bachmeier via Digitalmars-d wrote: [...] > The things you want - a perfect out-of-the-box Windows experience, > where you can make requests for others to do the things you want - is > not what D has to offer. While I agree that in an open-source volunteer

Re: My choice to pick Go over D ( and Rust ), mostly non-technical

On Friday, 2 February 2018 at 15:06:35 UTC, Benny wrote: You don't want any comments on your post, but this being the internet, it's necessary to respond when you disagree. D has a nice community IF you fit into the mold. As a Windows user i am frankly fed up with people giving responses as

Re: My choice to pick Go over D ( and Rust ), mostly non-technical

On Friday, 2 February 2018 at 15:06:35 UTC, Benny wrote: D has no default HTTP server. So you need to rely on vibe.d. Vibe.d being a external package that then relies on a few people to maintain it. You could also use my libs, which have been around far longer than vibe.d and work fairly