www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - C++ to catch up?

reply "jdrewsen" <nospam4321 hotmail.com> writes:
It seems like the C++ committee is speeding up development adding 
lots of the goodies from D like Ranges, static if, template 
contraints etc.

Will D still have a case when C++ gets this done?

I wonder if Andrei is part of the C++ Ranges Study Group?

The Future of C++:
http://channel9.msdn.com/Events/Build/2012/2-005

/Jonas
Nov 05 2012
next sibling parent reply Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 11:00:27 +0100
"jdrewsen" <nospam4321 hotmail.com> wrote:

 It seems like the C++ committee is speeding up development adding 
 lots of the goodies from D like Ranges, static if, template 
 contraints etc.
 
 Will D still have a case when C++ gets this done?
 

Yes, even if they go and add all of D's features, D will still be much cleaner. (IMO)
Nov 05 2012
next sibling parent reply "monarch_dodra" <monarchdodra gmail.com> writes:
On Monday, 5 November 2012 at 10:22:02 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 11:00:27 +0100
 "jdrewsen" <nospam4321 hotmail.com> wrote:

 It seems like the C++ committee is speeding up development 
 adding lots of the goodies from D like Ranges, static if, 
 template contraints etc.
 
 Will D still have a case when C++ gets this done?
 

Yes, even if they go and add all of D's features, D will still be much cleaner. (IMO)

C++'s "range" is actually a wrapper over an iterator "first-last" pair. While it does bring the convenience of D's ranges to C++, it remains hobbled in terms of efficiency and implementation. C++'s paradigm is pointers and iterators. At best, you can sparkle some ranges over it, but you'll never shift the paradigm. -------- The thing with C++'s new feature is that it requires developers to be on the bleeding edge of C++ knowledge. It's fine for the enthusiasts that read programming journals on their week-ends (like you and I), but not for the standard developer. Not to mention, even then, the syntax is hard as hell: lambdas in for loops? I have to look up the syntax every time. automatic type inference of the return value of a function? "auto foo() -> declype(...)", what...? All these functionalities are great, but also out of reach. Most of my colleagues still struggle with "simple" design patters such as strategies, or just plain algorithms with functors. Everytime I say something like "awesome, C++ will allow type inference" or "yay, RValue references!" they look at me like I'm some kind of weird space alien... -------- D packages the whole thing in an easy to use but complete package. C++ just stacks complicated stuff on top of a hard to use core.
Nov 05 2012
parent reply "Paulo Pinto" <pjmlp progtools.org> writes:
On Monday, 5 November 2012 at 11:06:39 UTC, monarch_dodra wrote:
 On Monday, 5 November 2012 at 10:22:02 UTC, Nick Sabalausky 
 wrote:
 On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 11:00:27 +0100
 "jdrewsen" <nospam4321 hotmail.com> wrote:

 It seems like the C++ committee is speeding up development 
 adding lots of the goodies from D like Ranges, static if, 
 template contraints etc.
 
 Will D still have a case when C++ gets this done?
 

Yes, even if they go and add all of D's features, D will still be much cleaner. (IMO)

C++'s "range" is actually a wrapper over an iterator "first-last" pair. While it does bring the convenience of D's ranges to C++, it remains hobbled in terms of efficiency and implementation. C++'s paradigm is pointers and iterators. At best, you can sparkle some ranges over it, but you'll never shift the paradigm. -------- The thing with C++'s new feature is that it requires developers to be on the bleeding edge of C++ knowledge. It's fine for the enthusiasts that read programming journals on their week-ends (like you and I), but not for the standard developer. Not to mention, even then, the syntax is hard as hell: lambdas in for loops? I have to look up the syntax every time. automatic type inference of the return value of a function? "auto foo() -> declype(...)", what...? All these functionalities are great, but also out of reach. Most of my colleagues still struggle with "simple" design patters such as strategies, or just plain algorithms with functors. Everytime I say something like "awesome, C++ will allow type inference" or "yay, RValue references!" they look at me like I'm some kind of weird space alien... -------- D packages the whole thing in an easy to use but complete package. C++ just stacks complicated stuff on top of a hard to use core.

I have the same feeling with some of our developers. Simpler languages tend to be manager friendly. It is always easier to find cheap resources. In my currently employer I have only done Java and C# projects so far, and I still fear the day I might do a C or C++ project, given the type of knowledge shown by some of our coworkers. -- Paulo
Nov 05 2012
parent Marco Leise <Marco.Leise gmx.de> writes:
Am Mon, 05 Nov 2012 13:10:35 +0100
schrieb "Paulo Pinto" <pjmlp progtools.org>:

 On Monday, 5 November 2012 at 11:06:39 UTC, monarch_dodra wrote:
 On Monday, 5 November 2012 at 10:22:02 UTC, Nick Sabalausky 
 wrote:
 On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 11:00:27 +0100
 "jdrewsen" <nospam4321 hotmail.com> wrote:

 It seems like the C++ committee is speeding up development 
 adding lots of the goodies from D like Ranges, static if, 
 template contraints etc.
 
 Will D still have a case when C++ gets this done?
 

Yes, even if they go and add all of D's features, D will still be much cleaner. (IMO)

C++'s "range" is actually a wrapper over an iterator "first-last" pair. While it does bring the convenience of D's ranges to C++, it remains hobbled in terms of efficiency and implementation. C++'s paradigm is pointers and iterators. At best, you can sparkle some ranges over it, but you'll never shift the paradigm. -------- The thing with C++'s new feature is that it requires developers to be on the bleeding edge of C++ knowledge. It's fine for the enthusiasts that read programming journals on their week-ends (like you and I), but not for the standard developer. Not to mention, even then, the syntax is hard as hell: lambdas in for loops? I have to look up the syntax every time. automatic type inference of the return value of a function? "auto foo() -> declype(...)", what...? All these functionalities are great, but also out of reach. Most of my colleagues still struggle with "simple" design patters such as strategies, or just plain algorithms with functors. Everytime I say something like "awesome, C++ will allow type inference" or "yay, RValue references!" they look at me like I'm some kind of weird space alien... -------- D packages the whole thing in an easy to use but complete package. C++ just stacks complicated stuff on top of a hard to use core.

I have the same feeling with some of our developers. Simpler languages tend to be manager friendly. It is always easier to find cheap resources. In my currently employer I have only done Java and C# projects so far, and I still fear the day I might do a C or C++ project, given the type of knowledge shown by some of our coworkers. -- Paulo

Are you talking bad about your colleagues behind their backs ? Hey, if I was to write a project in Haskell I'd be the idiot, too. -- Marco
Nov 05 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent reply deadalnix <deadalnix gmail.com> writes:
Le 05/11/2012 11:22, Nick Sabalausky a écrit :
 On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 11:00:27 +0100
 "jdrewsen"<nospam4321 hotmail.com>  wrote:

 It seems like the C++ committee is speeding up development adding
 lots of the goodies from D like Ranges, static if, template
 contraints etc.

 Will D still have a case when C++ gets this done?

Yes, even if they go and add all of D's features, D will still be much cleaner. (IMO)

You never heard about property ?
Nov 05 2012
parent Timon Gehr <timon.gehr gmx.ch> writes:
On 11/05/2012 04:54 PM, deadalnix wrote:
 Le 05/11/2012 11:22, Nick Sabalausky a écrit :
 On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 11:00:27 +0100
 "jdrewsen"<nospam4321 hotmail.com>  wrote:

 It seems like the C++ committee is speeding up development adding
 lots of the goodies from D like Ranges, static if, template
 contraints etc.

 Will D still have a case when C++ gets this done?

Yes, even if they go and add all of D's features, D will still be much cleaner. (IMO)

You never heard about property ?

The enhanced C++ as specified by Nick will have it as well, so it is not too relevant here whether you consider it clean or not. :)
Nov 06 2012
prev sibling parent Tobias Pankrath <lists pankrath.net> writes:
On 11/05/2012 11:22 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 11:00:27 +0100
 "jdrewsen" <nospam4321 hotmail.com> wrote:

 It seems like the C++ committee is speeding up development adding
 lots of the goodies from D like Ranges, static if, template
 contraints etc.

 Will D still have a case when C++ gets this done?

Yes, even if they go and add all of D's features, D will still be much cleaner. (IMO)

Compile times!
Nov 05 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent reply =?UTF-8?B?IkVyw6hiZSI=?= <erebe erebe.eu> writes:
On Monday, 5 November 2012 at 10:00:29 UTC, jdrewsen wrote:
 It seems like the C++ committee is speeding up development 
 adding lots of the goodies from D like Ranges, static if, 
 template contraints etc.

 Will D still have a case when C++ gets this done?

 I wonder if Andrei is part of the C++ Ranges Study Group?

 The Future of C++:
 http://channel9.msdn.com/Events/Build/2012/2-005

 /Jonas

http://forum.dlang.org/thread/iokgislnlzsvsosmqbbv forum.dlang.org
Nov 05 2012
parent reply "jdrewsen" <nospam4321 hotmail.com> writes:
On Monday, 5 November 2012 at 11:39:54 UTC, Erèbe wrote:
 On Monday, 5 November 2012 at 10:00:29 UTC, jdrewsen wrote:
 It seems like the C++ committee is speeding up development 
 adding lots of the goodies from D like Ranges, static if, 
 template contraints etc.

 Will D still have a case when C++ gets this done?

 I wonder if Andrei is part of the C++ Ranges Study Group?

 The Future of C++:
 http://channel9.msdn.com/Events/Build/2012/2-005

 /Jonas

http://forum.dlang.org/thread/iokgislnlzsvsosmqbbv forum.dlang.org

I didn't read all of that thread because of the title "D vs C++11" - but it does list some very good arguments in favour of D. I'll stop the emergency port of my D project to C++ then :P /Jonas
Nov 05 2012
parent "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> writes:
On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 01:19:04PM +0100, jdrewsen wrote:
 On Monday, 5 November 2012 at 11:39:54 UTC, Erèbe wrote:
On Monday, 5 November 2012 at 10:00:29 UTC, jdrewsen wrote:
It seems like the C++ committee is speeding up development
adding lots of the goodies from D like Ranges, static if,
template contraints etc.

Will D still have a case when C++ gets this done?

I wonder if Andrei is part of the C++ Ranges Study Group?

The Future of C++:
http://channel9.msdn.com/Events/Build/2012/2-005

/Jonas

http://forum.dlang.org/thread/iokgislnlzsvsosmqbbv forum.dlang.org

I didn't read all of that thread because of the title "D vs C++11" - but it does list some very good arguments in favour of D. I'll stop the emergency port of my D project to C++ then :P

[...] The thing you've to understand about C++ is that it is an old, widely-adopted language, and therefore it needs to maintain backward compatibility with the very large existing codebase. This prevents it from truly cleaning up some of the earliest design flaws, because that will break just about every C++ program ever written, which is something the C++ committee pretty much will never do. We're already seeing a little bit of this effect in D; introducing breaking changes OT1H lets us clean up the language and make it much better, but it also alienates a lot of existing users. That's why Walter has stated that there must be no more breaking changes, even if it is to fix what is in retrospect a poor language design decision. This limits how much we can do to fix existing design issues. D had the advantage that it could learn from C++'s mistakes and do things better. C++ doesn't have that benefit; it can introduce new features, but the old flaws that still plague the language must live on. The horribly ambiguous template syntax, for example, will continue to live on. C++ will continue being the language that must be parsed before it can be lexed. The ctor, copy ctor, etc., mess, must still live on. Operator overloading will never have the convenience of D's compile-time string-based approach, which allows very nice ways of reducing boilerplate code. Etc., etc.. And new features must work around existing syntax in order to not break existing code, which means nice syntax like D's templates, aliases, etc., will never be as nice as they are in D. I used to be big on C/C++ before I found D. From my admittedly biased POV, though, C++11 (and beyond) is "too little, too late". I remember being really excited when I first found out about C++11 (back when it was still called C++0x -- it didn't make it before the turn of the decade). Finally, I thought, here was the long-needed language update that everyone's been waiting for. Well, I have to say that I felt quite deflated after reading the spec summary. Yes it introduced some new innovations which I liked, and some fixes to the most glaring language flaws. But it was too little, too late. It took way too many years to finalize, which meant many more years before wide adoption and availability of conforming implementations. And it *still* didn't fix all of the fundamental flaws in the language. Not long afterwards, I found D, and that was the end of C++ for me. Yes D does have its warts, but in spite of it all it's still superior to C++ in many fundamental ways. T -- Guns don't kill people. Bullets do.
Nov 05 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent "Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com> writes:
On Monday, 5 November 2012 at 10:00:29 UTC, jdrewsen wrote:
 Will D still have a case when C++ gets this done?

C++ does a pretty good job on a lot of things, but there's a bunch of little things that just make it a little more frustrating day to day than D. There's still a bunch of big differences too, but it is little conveniences and cleaner syntax, etc., that I don't think C++ will catch up on.
Nov 05 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisProg gmx.com> writes:
On Monday, November 05, 2012 11:00:27 jdrewsen wrote:
 It seems like the C++ committee is speeding up development adding
 lots of the goodies from D like Ranges, static if, template
 contraints etc.
 
 Will D still have a case when C++ gets this done?
 
 I wonder if Andrei is part of the C++ Ranges Study Group?
 
 The Future of C++:
 http://channel9.msdn.com/Events/Build/2012/2-005

The closer that C++ gets to D, the less interested that many people will be in adopting it, particularly because of the large user base and the large amount of code out there that already uses C++. Programmers have to be convinced to move to D, and for many C++ programmers, the improvements to C++11 are enough to make a move to D not worth it, even if D is a better language. But C++ will never have all that D does. There are too many things that it would have to fundamentally change (e.g. how arrays work) which it can't change, because it would break backwards compatibility. Many of C++'s flaws stem from retaining backwards compatibility with C, and they're not going to break that now either. So, while they can do a lot to improve C++, there's a definite limit to it. D will ultimately have similar problems, since we'll have to maintain backwards compatibility for the same reasons that every other mainstream language does, but it's definitely ahead of C++ in that regard, because it was able to learn from C++'s mistakes. And if we ever create a D3, and we're willing to actually break compatibility with that version change (which C++ will never do in any real way with any version change), then we can avoid C++'s fate in that regard to at least some extent, but then you get into a situation like python 2 and python 3 or perl 5 and perl 6. In any case, it's pretty much a given that improving C++ will mean that fewer people will move away from it to other languages, but it's also a given that there are fundamental problems with C++ that can't be fixed, and in that regard, D will always come out ahead of it. - Jonathan M Davis
Nov 05 2012
parent reply "Laeeth Isharc" <laeethnospam nospamlaeeth.com> writes:
On Monday, 5 November 2012 at 18:20:23 UTC, Jonathan M Davis 
wrote:

 The closer that C++ gets to D, the less interested that many 
 people will be in adopting it, particularly because of the 
 large user base and the large amount of code out there that 
 already uses C++. Programmers have to be convinced to  move to 
 D, and for many C++ programmers, the improvements to C++11 are 
 enough  to make a move to D not worth it, even if D is a better 
 language.

(He goes on to point out that nonetheless D will always have the edge because legacy and installed base). One should be careful about superficial translation of instances from the purely commercial world to the world of languages, but it strikes me that Clayton Christensen's Innovator's Dilemma does apply somewhat to the case of D vs its peer languages. His central point is that in the beginning disruptive innovation very often tends to commence as a niche thing that may well be globally inferior - he uses the example of Honda motorbikes that allowed them to gain a foothold, and that once they dominated this niche and gained succour from it were able to use to expand their footprint to the extent that they posed a serious threat to the established dominant players. But for many years, these (and later the cars) were seen as products of clearly inferior quality that had the advantage of being cheap. The interesting thing is the emotional aspect of perception - nobody would have taken you seriously had you predicted in the early stages that Japanese auto makers would become what they subsequently became. And one could have pointed out some decades after the war ended that they had been in the business for years, and why should anything change. This is exactly what people say about D - it's been around forever and hasn't taken off, so why bother. (see recent Slashdot thread for an example of this). It is a basic insight of gestalt psychology that perception is shaped by emotion (really it's affect, which goes much deeper - emotion is the tip of the affect iceberg), and one way to know when this is occurring (my background is as an investor and speculator, so I have devoted a couple of decades to applying this in a practical way) is that on the one hand you have an emotional intensity out of proportion to the importance of the topic, and on the other the reasons people put forward to justify how they feel are observably not in accordance with the facts. See the Slashdot thread... So in any case, D is not competing on price, but has other strengths that are of very high appeal to a certain group (if you want to write native code in a productive way) even though one must honestly acknowledge its imperfections in a global sense - reading back through the forums a dozen years, this seems to occur quite regularly in waves. "When is D going to be finished?" even a decade back. To be upset by the imperfections is missing the point, because languages - even programming languages - have a certain innate pattern of development (that resembles Goethe's observations about the metamorphosis of plants) that can't be forced, no matter how much one grumbles or stamps one's feet. Furthermore, people tend to extrapolate superficial trends even though history tells us this is a poor guide to the future. Japanese cars really took off once crude exploded in the early 70s (and again towards the end), and auto-makers were slow to respond. Perhaps they did not organize their business on the basis of a prediction abuot energy prices, but the point is they were ready to take advantage of this shift when it occurred. I do not want to attempt to be a pundit, but it is interesting that the notable use cases of D - at Sociomantic, Adroll, and Facebook are all aligned with certain salient and very powerful underlying technological drivers and trends. It's no longer true in many applications that programmer time is expensive compared to machine time, and large data sets encountering the challenges of memory vs CPU trajectories create new challenges and require new approaches. And it is a positive for D that some of its competition does not take D seriously at this stage - one thinks for example of Guido and his insistence that execution speed ought not to be a factor given work is I/O + network bound, even though this is less true for numerical computing and some kinds of data crunching. (Not that D is mature here, but there is much that can be done within the existing framework). In any case, dissatisfaction channeled in a constructive direction is a positive thing, because it is the opposite of complacency and is the edge of the challenger. The point isn't how people feel, but how they respond to the challenges in front of them. As a newcomer, it is very satisfying to see the progress made on documentation, ecosystem, and C++ integration and I have quite some respect for the difficulty of the roles of Walter and Andrei. One is so short of time and attention, and no matter how hard one works and, whatever decisions one makes, it is impossible to keep everyone happy. If one isn't being criticized, one isn't doing it right. (Which is not to say that some of the criticisms will not have merit). Here is a table from an article exploring Christensen's ideas. There are some resonances with past and current questions in the development of D, although as I said one can't map things perfectly because it's a different situation. And the original book is better than what has been written based upon it. [Table doesn't format well, but you can see it here. The surrounding text is less relevant]. http://recode.net/2014/01/06/the-four-stages-of-disruption-2/ Laeeth.
Feb 01
next sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
Thanks for the good read!

BTW, one effect D has had is that other languages are adopting D's features, 
though few will admit it.
Feb 01
next sibling parent "eles" <eles eles.com> writes:
On Monday, 2 February 2015 at 00:49:14 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
 Thanks for the good read!

 BTW, one effect D has had is that other languages are adopting 
 D's features, though few will admit it.

But those who know are very grateful to D for that. OTOH, it would be a pity if D remains just a good proof of concept...
Feb 02
prev sibling parent reply "Laeeth Isharc" <laeethnospam nospamlaeeth.com> writes:
On Monday, 2 February 2015 at 00:49:14 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
 Thanks for the good read!

 BTW, one effect D has had is that other languages are adopting 
 D's features, though few will admit it.

Yes - eerily out of the book from the Innovator's Dilemma. But as Jonathan said (and maybe you too), they are trapped by their installed base so one can only do so much. One sees the same thing with political parties when the tide shifts. (Let us not start on politics, though ;)
Feb 02
parent Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 2/2/2015 12:20 PM, Laeeth Isharc wrote:
 On Monday, 2 February 2015 at 00:49:14 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
 Thanks for the good read!

 BTW, one effect D has had is that other languages are adopting D's features,
 though few will admit it.

Yes - eerily out of the book from the Innovator's Dilemma. But as Jonathan said (and maybe you too), they are trapped by their installed base so one can only do so much.

I can't complain. D steals from other languages, too! But yes, adopting features is constrained by the base behavior of the language.
Feb 02
prev sibling next sibling parent "Joakim" <dlang joakim.fea.st> writes:
On Sunday, 1 February 2015 at 23:20:15 UTC, Laeeth Isharc wrote:
 [Table doesn't format well, but you can see it here.  The 
 surrounding text is less relevant].
 http://recode.net/2014/01/06/the-four-stages-of-disruption-2/

Heh, funny that that article was written by Sinofsky, who manifestly failed with his re-imagining of Windows with Win8, which is why he was soon given the boot. Although, Win7 shipped under his watch and it's the first Windows that I could bear to use, actually a decent OS.
Feb 01
prev sibling parent reply "Don" <x nospam.com> writes:
On Sunday, 1 February 2015 at 23:20:15 UTC, Laeeth Isharc wrote:
 On Monday, 5 November 2012 at 18:20:23 UTC, Jonathan M Davis 
 wrote:

 The closer that C++ gets to D, the less interested that many 
 people will be in adopting it, particularly because of the 
 large user base and the large amount of code out there that 
 already uses C++. Programmers have to be convinced to  move to 
 D, and for many C++ programmers, the improvements to C++11 are 
 enough  to make a move to D not worth it, even if D is a 
 better language.

(He goes on to point out that nonetheless D will always have the edge because legacy and installed base). One should be careful about superficial translation of instances from the purely commercial world to the world of languages, but it strikes me that Clayton Christensen's Innovator's Dilemma does apply somewhat to the case of D vs its peer languages. His central point is that in the beginning disruptive innovation very often tends to commence as a niche thing that may well be globally inferior - he uses the example of Honda motorbikes that allowed them to gain a foothold, and that once they dominated this niche and gained succour from it were able to use to expand their footprint to the extent that they posed a serious threat to the established dominant players. But for many years, these (and later the cars) were seen as products of clearly inferior quality that had the advantage of being cheap. The interesting thing is the emotional aspect of perception - nobody would have taken you seriously had you predicted in the early stages that Japanese auto makers would become what they subsequently became. And one could have pointed out some decades after the war ended that they had been in the business for years, and why should anything change. This is exactly what people say about D - it's been around forever and hasn't taken off, so why bother. (see recent Slashdot thread for an example of this). It is a basic insight of gestalt psychology that perception is shaped by emotion (really it's affect, which goes much deeper - emotion is the tip of the affect iceberg), and one way to know when this is occurring (my background is as an investor and speculator, so I have devoted a couple of decades to applying this in a practical way) is that on the one hand you have an emotional intensity out of proportion to the importance of the topic, and on the other the reasons people put forward to justify how they feel are observably not in accordance with the facts. See the Slashdot thread... So in any case, D is not competing on price, but has other strengths that are of very high appeal to a certain group (if you want to write native code in a productive way) even though one must honestly acknowledge its imperfections in a global sense - reading back through the forums a dozen years, this seems to occur quite regularly in waves. "When is D going to be finished?" even a decade back. To be upset by the imperfections is missing the point, because languages - even programming languages - have a certain innate pattern of development (that resembles Goethe's observations about the metamorphosis of plants) that can't be forced, no matter how much one grumbles or stamps one's feet. Furthermore, people tend to extrapolate superficial trends even though history tells us this is a poor guide to the future. Japanese cars really took off once crude exploded in the early 70s (and again towards the end), and auto-makers were slow to respond. Perhaps they did not organize their business on the basis of a prediction abuot energy prices, but the point is they were ready to take advantage of this shift when it occurred. I do not want to attempt to be a pundit, but it is interesting that the notable use cases of D - at Sociomantic, Adroll, and Facebook are all aligned with certain salient and very powerful underlying technological drivers and trends. It's no longer true in many applications that programmer time is expensive compared to machine time, and large data sets encountering the challenges of memory vs CPU trajectories create new challenges and require new approaches. And it is a positive for D that some of its competition does not take D seriously at this stage - one thinks for example of Guido and his insistence that execution speed ought not to be a factor given work is I/O + network bound, even though this is less true for numerical computing and some kinds of data crunching. (Not that D is mature here, but there is much that can be done within the existing framework). In any case, dissatisfaction channeled in a constructive direction is a positive thing, because it is the opposite of complacency and is the edge of the challenger. The point isn't how people feel, but how they respond to the challenges in front of them. As a newcomer, it is very satisfying to see the progress made on documentation, ecosystem, and C++ integration and I have quite some respect for the difficulty of the roles of Walter and Andrei. One is so short of time and attention, and no matter how hard one works and, whatever decisions one makes, it is impossible to keep everyone happy. If one isn't being criticized, one isn't doing it right. (Which is not to say that some of the criticisms will not have merit). Here is a table from an article exploring Christensen's ideas. There are some resonances with past and current questions in the development of D, although as I said one can't map things perfectly because it's a different situation. And the original book is better than what has been written based upon it. [Table doesn't format well, but you can see it here. The surrounding text is less relevant]. http://recode.net/2014/01/06/the-four-stages-of-disruption-2/ Laeeth.

Excellent post. This situation is very obvious to us at Sociomantic, as we're at the forefront of a massive disruption that is happening in the advertising industry. D has far better prospects in disruptive technology, rather than trying to compete with incumbents in the rapidly disappearing traditional desktop market. And when I read this: "First published in 1997, Christensen's book suggests that successful companies can put too much emphasis on customers' current needs, and fail to adopt new technology or business models that will meet their customers' unstated or future needs" -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Innovator%27s_Dilemma I thought: "they put too much emphasis on backwards compatibility" ...
Feb 03
parent reply "Laeeth Isharc" <laeethnospam nospamlaeeth.com> writes:
 Excellent post. This situation is very obvious to us at 
 Sociomantic, as we're at the forefront of a massive disruption 
 that is happening in the advertising industry. D has far better 
 prospects in disruptive technology, rather than trying to 
 compete with incumbents in the rapidly disappearing traditional 
 desktop market.

Thanks, Don. I am honoured that you took the time to read through all of this, and appreciate the feedback. Every now and then I question whether I am headed in the right direction to use D (not because of anything lacking in D, but because it is less conventional, and because I have been away from the pulse of technology for a very long time). Your industry is a little different, and my needs for the time being are not even soft real-time (although that could easily change). But from listening to your talk, I am pretty sure you know what you are doing, and wanting high productivity when dealing with potentially quite respectably sized data sets is one shared aspect - so that is a source of comfort. Could I ask you one thing, not directly relating to D? Why did you pick Berlin to launch your startup? (You in the corporate sense, I mean). My fiancee is German, and I have some inklings as to why, but I would be curious to know if you have time to jot down a few lines. Feel free to shoot an email if you don't wish to post publicly. laeeth laeeth com. I heard from a chap who is CTO for a German fund of funds that one can hire well at a good price there, but I doubt that's the only reason, particularly for your kind of business.
 "First published in 1997, Christensen's book suggests that 
 successful companies can put too much emphasis on customers' 
 current needs, and fail to adopt new technology or business 
 models that will meet their customers' unstated or future 
 needs" -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Innovator%27s_Dilemma

 I thought: "they put too much emphasis on backwards 
 compatibility" ...

Haha - I know you have been one of the proponents of breaking changes. I think that is a distinct question from the other stuff, and guess it is not easy for the language leaders to balance the different demands - impossible not to make one group unhappy. Someone cynical might say it is easier for you take that position if you are still mostly on D1, and so don't pay the same price others would. I doubt that's a fair comment because you have a much larger vested interest in the survival of the ecosystem. In any case, that's not an area where I have expertise. Breaking changes aside, one can't say there isn't a sustained dynamism to the development of D. Laeeth.
Feb 03
parent reply "Don" <x nospam.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 4 February 2015 at 03:52:26 UTC, Laeeth Isharc 
wrote:
 Excellent post. This situation is very obvious to us at 
 Sociomantic, as we're at the forefront of a massive disruption 
 that is happening in the advertising industry. D has far 
 better prospects in disruptive technology, rather than trying 
 to compete with incumbents in the rapidly disappearing 
 traditional desktop market.

Thanks, Don. I am honoured that you took the time to read through all of this, and appreciate the feedback. Every now and then I question whether I am headed in the right direction to use D (not because of anything lacking in D, but because it is less conventional, and because I have been away from the pulse of technology for a very long time). Your industry is a little different, and my needs for the time being are not even soft real-time (although that could easily change). But from listening to your talk, I am pretty sure you know what you are doing, and wanting high productivity when dealing with potentially quite respectably sized data sets is one shared aspect - so that is a source of comfort.

Thanks! Yes, I think that larger data sets are not well served by existing languages. And ease of handling large data is actually more significant than raw performance. Domains like ours are at least as much I/O bound as CPU-bound, and ability to adapt rapidly is very important.
 Could I ask you one thing, not directly relating to D?  Why did 
 you pick Berlin to launch your startup?  (You in the corporate 
 sense, I mean).

Perhaps Berlin chose the company, rather than the other way around :) The companies' founders all grew up in East Germany, I think they were just living in Berlin. But, there are a huge number of startups in Berlin. It's a place with great infrastructure, low costs, and available talent. So it's certainly an attractive place to launch a startup.
 "First published in 1997, Christensen's book suggests that 
 successful companies can put too much emphasis on customers' 
 current needs, and fail to adopt new technology or business 
 models that will meet their customers' unstated or future 
 needs" -- 
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Innovator%27s_Dilemma

 I thought: "they put too much emphasis on backwards 
 compatibility" ...

Haha - I know you have been one of the proponents of breaking changes. I think that is a distinct question from the other stuff, and guess it is not easy for the language leaders to balance the different demands - impossible not to make one group unhappy. Someone cynical might say it is easier for you take that position if you are still mostly on D1, and so don't pay the same price others would.

Yes, that's true, and so my opinions should be slightly weighted downwards. But even so, the reality is that bugfixes cause breakages anyway. Most code that isn't actively being maintained, is broken already. If you're an early adopter, you expect to have a lot of breakage pain. The thing that is frustrating is when decisions are made as if we were much further along the adoption/disruption cycle, than where we actually are. We don't yet have huge, inflexible users that demand stability at all costs. There was widespread agreement on this, from all of the eight companies at DConf who were using D commercially.
 Breaking changes aside, one can't say there isn't a sustained 
 dynamism to the development of D.

Yes. Though I wonder if we are putting too much emphasis on being a replacement for C++; I fear that the better we become at replacing it, the more we will duplicate its problems. But that's just a niggling doubt rather than a well-reasoned belief.
Feb 04
next sibling parent "Zach the Mystic" <reachzach gggmail.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 4 February 2015 at 10:07:53 UTC, Don wrote:
 Yes, that's true, and so my opinions should be slightly 
 weighted downwards. But even so, the reality is that bugfixes 
 cause breakages anyway. Most code that isn't actively being 
 maintained, is broken already. If you're an early adopter, you 
 expect to have a lot of breakage pain.

 The thing that is frustrating is when decisions are made as if 
 we were much further along the adoption/disruption cycle, than 
 where we actually are.
 We don't yet have huge, inflexible users that demand stability 
 at all costs.
 There was widespread agreement on this, from all of the eight 
 companies at DConf who were using D commercially.

From a recent post of mine: The big temptation for software developers is to *promise* stability in order to attract the users they need in order to get the feedback they need in order to create the best possible design, and then break stability with the new design.
Feb 04
prev sibling parent "Laeeth Isharc" <Laeeth.nospam nospam-laeeth.com> writes:
To Zachary:

"The big temptation for software developers is to *promise*
stability in order to attract the users they need in order to get
the feedback they need in order to create the best possible
design, and then break stability with the new design."

Yes - economists call this time inconsistency.  And I think 
experience shows the weakness of looking at the world in terms of 
people being pure rational calculators.  I believe one needs to 
make a judgement about the people involved and their motivations 
and character.  Ultimately you cannot protect yourself against 
opportunistic behaviour through contracts (although they can 
help).  So one needs to assess track record in terms of what it 
indicates about character.  Economists define opportunistic 
behaviour as self-seeking with guile - if that is the case here, 
they are going about it in a strange way for such highly 
intelligent people ;)

And to Don:

 Thanks! Yes, I think that larger data sets are not well served 
 by existing languages. And ease of handling large data is 
 actually more significant than raw performance. Domains like 
 ours are at least as much I/O bound as CPU-bound, and ability 
 to adapt rapidly is very important.

We had a discussion about this in London at drinks after the meetup. The chap who I was talking with was a very highly experienced developer who came from a C++/C/F# background, ex MS research, and was writing his own functional language. He took the position that this kind of argument in favour of native code was in many cases spurious, since one could simply scale up at low cost in the cloud (paying due regard to the difficulties of parallelisation). I found your talk very interesting, and would love to see a piece explaining from a technical perspective more on what you discuss above. But of course you must have very little time, and I doubt this comes at the top of your todo list!
 Perhaps Berlin chose the company, rather than the other way 
 around :)
 The companies' founders all grew up in East Germany, I think 
 they were just living in Berlin.
 But, there are a huge number of startups in Berlin. It's a 
 place with great infrastructure, low costs, and available 
 talent. So it's certainly an attractive place to launch a 
 startup.

Aha. Thanks for the colour. I think if I spoke German and the regulatory environment were a bit more favourable for finance I would be there now. The quality of life, whether you are single or have a family, certainly beats London.
 The thing that is frustrating is when decisions are made as if 
 we were much further along the adoption/disruption cycle, than 
 where we actually are.
 We don't yet have huge, inflexible users that demand stability 
 at all costs.
 There was widespread agreement on this, from all of the eight 
 companies at DConf who were using D commercially.

Very interesting to hear. It is an interesting dynamic where the forum discussion is not necessarily representative of all the constituencies involved. Companies don't tend to hang out in forums, and its a different way of operating to do things in the open from how things are typically done in business. I haven't yet earned the right to have an opinion on the topic.
 Breaking changes aside, one can't say there isn't a sustained 
 dynamism to the development of D.

Yes. Though I wonder if we are putting too much emphasis on being a replacement for C++; I fear that the better we become at replacing it, the more we will duplicate its problems. But that's just a niggling doubt rather than a well-reasoned belief.

Or on this one so much ;). I suppose one never truly wins the fight against entropy in all its disguises, but it is encouraging to see the people involved certainly are aware of the risk, and recent discussion over the risks of runaway language extension fit this idea. Thanks for your thoughts - I appreciate your taking the time. Laeeth
Feb 04
prev sibling parent reply "deadalnix" <deadalnix gmail.com> writes:
On Monday, 5 November 2012 at 10:00:29 UTC, jdrewsen wrote:
 It seems like the C++ committee is speeding up development 
 adding lots of the goodies from D like Ranges, static if, 
 template contraints etc.

 Will D still have a case when C++ gets this done?

 I wonder if Andrei is part of the C++ Ranges Study Group?

 The Future of C++:
 http://channel9.msdn.com/Events/Build/2012/2-005

 /Jonas

Fast compile time, bearable syntax, thread safety arc so on... C++ is building on faulty foundation. I see them talking example from us as a good news.
Feb 01
next sibling parent reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On 2/1/15 4:35 PM, deadalnix wrote:
 On Monday, 5 November 2012 at 10:00:29 UTC, jdrewsen wrote:
 It seems like the C++ committee is speeding up development adding lots
 of the goodies from D like Ranges, static if, template contraints etc.

 Will D still have a case when C++ gets this done?

 I wonder if Andrei is part of the C++ Ranges Study Group?

 The Future of C++:
 http://channel9.msdn.com/Events/Build/2012/2-005

 /Jonas

Fast compile time, bearable syntax, thread safety arc so on... C++ is building on faulty foundation. I see them talking example from us as a good news.

Wait, is this a reply today to a post made in November 2012? -- Andrei
Feb 01
parent reply Steven Schveighoffer <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
On 2/1/15 7:51 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 On 2/1/15 4:35 PM, deadalnix wrote:
 On Monday, 5 November 2012 at 10:00:29 UTC, jdrewsen wrote:
 It seems like the C++ committee is speeding up development adding lots
 of the goodies from D like Ranges, static if, template contraints etc.

 Will D still have a case when C++ gets this done?

 I wonder if Andrei is part of the C++ Ranges Study Group?

 The Future of C++:
 http://channel9.msdn.com/Events/Build/2012/2-005

 /Jonas

Fast compile time, bearable syntax, thread safety arc so on... C++ is building on faulty foundation. I see them talking example from us as a good news.

Wait, is this a reply today to a post made in November 2012? -- Andrei

Yes, here is what happens: 1. person does a search, finds 2+ year old thread that he likes to respond to. 2. Entire thread gets pushed to the "most recent" posts on forum/newsgroup 3. Others now see the thread (possibly for the second time), and don't realize it's old, and read it thinking it's about today. A nice thing might be to make color of posts on forum.dlang.org based on recentness, 2+ month old be one color, 1+ year be another. This wouldn't help with newsgroup users, but it probably would help with forum users. -Steve
Feb 02
parent reply "Laeeth Isharc" <laeethnospam nospamlaeeth.com> writes:
 Wait, is this a reply today to a post made in November 2012? 
 -- Andrei


 Yes, here is what happens:

 1. person does a search, finds 2+ year old thread that he likes 
 to respond to.
 2. Entire thread gets pushed to the "most recent" posts on 
 forum/newsgroup
 3. Others now see the thread (possibly for the second time), 
 and don't realize it's old, and read it thinking it's about 
 today.

 A nice thing might be to make color of posts on forum.dlang.org 
 based on recentness, 2+ month old be one color, 1+ year be 
 another.

 This wouldn't help with newsgroup users, but it probably would 
 help with forum users.

 -Steve

Perhaps I should have made clearer in my post, but do you think it is necessarily inappropriate to extend a conversation that petered out rather than making a new post. Many observers (Neil Postman - 'amusing ourselves to death') have pointed to the superficiality and loss of coherence arising from the way in which we use technology. The question of D's edge and prospects isn't one that changes more than incrementally over a couple of years, as I understand it. And I thought more than a few times before deciding to post as to whether this would add value to the world, but it's an important question and my particular part of finance is not a tiny use domain. Putting oneself in the position of a prospective new user (as I have to do before suggesting my peers give D a try), one comes away from reading Slashdot discussions with the idea that there are a lot of complaints about D - and then one reads the forums and has a similar perspective. Since people are starved of attention and time, some will give up right then. So I wanted to do my small part to contextualize this. Laeeth.
Feb 02
parent reply Steven Schveighoffer <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
On 2/2/15 3:32 PM, Laeeth Isharc wrote:

 Perhaps I should have made clearer in my post, but do you think it is
 necessarily inappropriate to extend a conversation that petered out
 rather than making a new post.  Many observers (Neil Postman - 'amusing
 ourselves to death') have pointed to the superficiality and loss of
 coherence arising from the way in which we use technology.

Absolutely not inappropriate. I actually prefer it being a newsgroup user. Many people will instead reference a post on the forum instead of replying, and then I have to use the forum interface to see what they are talking about. I'd much rather have the full discussion in my preferred interface. However, a note to say this is in response to a really old post at the top may be helpful, people typically ignore the "X posted in 2012" part of the quoted original.
 The question of D's edge and prospects isn't one that changes more than
 incrementally over a couple of years, as I understand it.  And I thought
 more than a few times before deciding to post as to whether this would
 add value to the world, but it's an important question and my particular
 part of finance is not a tiny use domain.

 Putting oneself in the position of a prospective new user (as I have to
 do before suggesting my peers give D a try), one comes away from reading
 Slashdot discussions with the idea that there are a lot of complaints
 about D - and then one reads the forums and has a similar perspective.
 Since people are starved of attention and time, some will give up right
 then.  So I wanted to do my small part to contextualize this.

The thing is, not everyone here is on slashdot, reddit etc. I think you can always find a place where people are hostile to your language to bitch (and some users find some sort of glee in trolling those posts to complain about the language every chance they can). The best place to ask questions about d is on the d.learn forum. And yes, there are chronic complainers about the language here too. Sometimes their gripes are legitimate, sometimes they are not, and generally the devs are there to answer every one. D is definitely not for mission critical applications yet, unless you are willing to work your whole business around it (e.g. Sociomantic). I think we are in a pretty good spot right now. I'm very optimistic about the future of D. -Steve
Feb 03
parent "Laeeth Isharc" <Laeeth.nospam nospam-laeeth.com> writes:
 Absolutely not inappropriate. I actually prefer it being a 
 newsgroup user. Many people will instead reference a post on 
 the forum instead of replying, and then I have to use the forum 
 interface to see what they are talking about. I'd much rather 
 have the full discussion in my preferred interface.

Thank you, and will be clearer in future.
 The thing is, not everyone here is on slashdot, reddit etc. I 
 think you can always find a place where people are hostile to 
 your language to bitch (and some users find some sort of glee 
 in trolling those posts to complain about the language every 
 chance they can).

Mass medium has low average quality. But for the moment, that is what people will find and many won't dig further. Someone ostensibly in a position of power to pick his platform doesn't necessarily have real power because he may have to be sensitive to what other people say - silly, superficial matters of perception matter even though they ought not to. Some day there will be a nice opportunity for someone in the field to write an article interviewing CTOs and other uses of D about their rationale and experiences, warts and all. I don't know people in tech journalism, otherwise I would try to make it happen myself. The best place to ask questions about d is on
 the d.learn forum. And yes, there are chronic complainers about 
 the language here too. Sometimes their gripes are legitimate, 
 sometimes they are not, and generally the devs are there to 
 answer every one.

Complaining is good, particularly when the energy is channeled well, as is happening with D (it seems to me). Compare and contrast England and Germany. The English don't complain as much, and so life is much more pleasant socially, but nothing works! If you have high standards, you will have many more occasions to express ways in which something can be improved. It might take you longer to finish, but the race is not always won by the swiftest.
 D is definitely not for mission critical applications yet, 
 unless you are willing to work your whole business around it 
 (e.g. Sociomantic).

I am making the bet that it is, although my application is less brittle than many.
 I think we are in a pretty good spot right now. I'm very 
 optimistic about the future of D.

I agree, and hope we are both right.
Feb 04
prev sibling parent "ponce" <contact gam3sfrommars.fr> writes:
On Monday, 2 February 2015 at 00:35:14 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
 Fast compile time, bearable syntax, thread safety arc so on...

 C++ is building on faulty foundation. I see them talking 
 example from us as a good news.

I don't see any way writing C++ could become a much better experience than what it is now (ie. an expensive pass-time). Reading about C++14/C++17 is a yawn-inducing exercise for most since this won't enhance our lives in the next decade. The _existing codebases_ are what defines C++ the language not what they could/should be. C++ also discourages refactoring by being so inflexible. For example, when C++ finally has modules, they will still coexist with regular headers, and most libraries will use the old, compatible style for long. It will be really more complicated than in D.
Feb 02