www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - World needs a safe language

reply Independent <nuwnin mailpoof.com> writes:
World needs a safe language statically typed language without GC 
but simpler than rust. D's biggest win against rust is that it 
has much better interop than rust with C++. If we make D a no 
GC,safe language it can easily beat rust. GC can be optional. No 
company wants to rip and replace existing c++ code. Why would 
some want to use D since go with GC is already there which is 
backed by a big corp. Their marketing made GC good. However good 
D is compared to Go, its hard to suceed with GC. This is just my 
opinion. well wisher.
Apr 09
next sibling parent reply evilrat <evilrat666 gmail.com> writes:
On Friday, 9 April 2021 at 21:37:51 UTC, Independent wrote:
 World needs a safe language statically typed language without 
 GC but simpler than rust. D's biggest win against rust is that 
 it has much better interop than rust with C++. If we make D a 
 no GC,safe language it can easily beat rust. GC can be 
 optional. No company wants to rip and replace existing c++ 
 code. Why would some want to use D since go with GC is already 
 there which is backed by a big corp. Their marketing made GC 
 good. However good D is compared to Go, its hard to suceed with 
 GC. This is just my opinion. well wisher.
Just don't use it if you hate it so much. Compilers provided you with tools to track implicit GC runs(dmd -vgc, ldc -nogc flags), use RAII or whatever for memory allocations, make your own containers that handles its memory or find existing one on dub. Done. No need to waste time and money inventing what's already there.
Apr 09
parent reply Independent <nuwnin mailpoof.com> writes:
Sorry I dont hate, instead I have lot of respect for the 
community. I was just sharing my thoughts. I wish D gets more 
success in the future. What I felt is that D needs a plan, 
roadmoap, goal and shout it outside to the world and the 
community can help in small pieces. It needs a small makeover.
Apr 10
parent reply Dylan Graham <dylan.graham2000 gmail.com> writes:
On Saturday, 10 April 2021 at 20:04:03 UTC, Independent wrote:
 Sorry I dont hate, instead I have lot of respect for the 
 community. I was just sharing my thoughts. I wish D gets more 
 success in the future. What I felt is that D needs a plan, 
 roadmoap, goal and shout it outside to the world and the 
 community can help in small pieces. It needs a small makeover.
I'm kind of torn on this. I'm not sure that anyone really has a long term vision of what D will be. It's becoming quite a different language from even 10 years ago. It is quite affirming to hear someone say "this is what X will be in 5 years". At the same time, D's evolution does feel a bit more organic, as contributors commit things they feel is beneficial for the language in a decentralised manner.
Apr 10
parent reply Paulo Pinto <pjmlp progtools.org> writes:
On Saturday, 10 April 2021 at 23:25:40 UTC, Dylan Graham wrote:
 On Saturday, 10 April 2021 at 20:04:03 UTC, Independent wrote:
 Sorry I dont hate, instead I have lot of respect for the 
 community. I was just sharing my thoughts. I wish D gets more 
 success in the future. What I felt is that D needs a plan, 
 roadmoap, goal and shout it outside to the world and the 
 community can help in small pieces. It needs a small makeover.
I'm kind of torn on this. I'm not sure that anyone really has a long term vision of what D will be. It's becoming quite a different language from even 10 years ago. It is quite affirming to hear someone say "this is what X will be in 5 years". At the same time, D's evolution does feel a bit more organic, as contributors commit things they feel is beneficial for the language in a decentralised manner.
Here are some ideas, Meadow Platform, a ┬ÁRTOS and full .NET Standard compatible runtime. https://www.wildernesslabs.co/developers Had it been in D, there would be no need for the ┬ÁRTOS, everything would be in D. microEJ, a ┬ÁRTOS and Java based runtime. https://www.microej.com/ Also a nice candidate for D. Unity, now the must go engine for anyone that wants to do game dev, AR and VR without having to deal with C++ as much as possible. nogc. F-Secure decided Go is good enough for bare metal coding, so USB Armory with TamaGo unikernel was born, yet another use case where D would have shinned. https://www.f-secure.com/en/consulting/foundry/usb-armory Discussing if D would be better with or without GC is pointless, rather improving the already existing language, so that companies like the examples above can look at D and place it on their candidate list for final decision how to build their products.
Apr 11
next sibling parent reply Dylan Graham <dylan.graham2000 gmail.com> writes:
On Sunday, 11 April 2021 at 09:29:35 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
 On Saturday, 10 April 2021 at 23:25:40 UTC, Dylan Graham wrote:
 [...]
Here are some ideas, Meadow Platform, a ┬ÁRTOS and full .NET Standard compatible runtime. https://www.wildernesslabs.co/developers Had it been in D, there would be no need for the ┬ÁRTOS, everything would be in D. microEJ, a ┬ÁRTOS and Java based runtime. https://www.microej.com/ Also a nice candidate for D. Unity, now the must go engine for anyone that wants to do game dev, AR and VR without having to deal with C++ as much as possible. with nogc. F-Secure decided Go is good enough for bare metal coding, so USB Armory with TamaGo unikernel was born, yet another use case where D would have shinned. https://www.f-secure.com/en/consulting/foundry/usb-armory Discussing if D would be better with or without GC is pointless, rather improving the already existing language, so that companies like the examples above can look at D and place it on their candidate list for final decision how to build their products.
I think you misunderstand my position. The comment you replied to was me discussing D's leadership/outlook style. In my comment above that, I did mention exactly what you are doing. LWDR is my attempt to make full D accessible in the embedded world. I am trying to improve D in a sector that I personally prioritise.
Apr 11
next sibling parent reply Paulo Pinto <pjmlp progtools.org> writes:
On Sunday, 11 April 2021 at 09:47:15 UTC, Dylan Graham wrote:
 On Sunday, 11 April 2021 at 09:29:35 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
 [...]
I think you misunderstand my position. The comment you replied to was me discussing D's leadership/outlook style. In my comment above that, I did mention exactly what you are doing. LWDR is my attempt to make full D accessible in the embedded world. I am trying to improve D in a sector that I personally prioritise.
I was kind of agreeing with you, the goal needs to be to improve existing features, trying to sell it to the GC haters crowd is worthless effort, they will just come up with the next reason why D isn't suitable for them.
Apr 11
parent Dylan Graham <dylan.graham2000 gmail.com> writes:
On Sunday, 11 April 2021 at 10:10:02 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
 On Sunday, 11 April 2021 at 09:47:15 UTC, Dylan Graham wrote:
 On Sunday, 11 April 2021 at 09:29:35 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
 [...]
I think you misunderstand my position. The comment you replied to was me discussing D's leadership/outlook style. In my comment above that, I did mention exactly what you are doing. LWDR is my attempt to make full D accessible in the embedded world. I am trying to improve D in a sector that I personally prioritise.
I was kind of agreeing with you, the goal needs to be to improve existing features, trying to sell it to the GC haters crowd is worthless effort, they will just come up with the next reason why D isn't suitable for them.
My apologies, I misinterpreted what you were saying. I agree. D has made many efforts to reduce it's GC dependency and there are packages to help bridge the gaps the language can't. Alas, there is still a lot of die-hard anti-GC folk. Honestly, I kinda of like the simplicity of D's GC. I know why it's going to run, when it's going to run and what it will do. In tight situations where I don't want the GC, it's super easy to avoid. D currently has a tremendous amount of flexibility, I can develop fast where I want and blazing performance where I want. I feel like D's flexibility is criminally undervalued.
Apr 11
prev sibling parent Imperatorn <johan_forsberg_86 hotmail.com> writes:
On Sunday, 11 April 2021 at 09:47:15 UTC, Dylan Graham wrote:
 On Sunday, 11 April 2021 at 09:29:35 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
 [...]
I think you misunderstand my position. The comment you replied to was me discussing D's leadership/outlook style. In my comment above that, I did mention exactly what you are doing. LWDR is my attempt to make full D accessible in the embedded world. I am trying to improve D in a sector that I personally prioritise.
I really appreciate the work you've doing for getting D to embedded. It's one of the last pieces for us/me to adopt D 100%
Apr 11
prev sibling parent Imperatorn <johan_forsberg_86 hotmail.com> writes:
On Sunday, 11 April 2021 at 09:29:35 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
 On Saturday, 10 April 2021 at 23:25:40 UTC, Dylan Graham wrote:
 [...]
Here are some ideas, Meadow Platform, a ┬ÁRTOS and full .NET Standard compatible runtime. [...]
+1
Apr 11
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Imperatorn <johan_forsberg_86 hotmail.com> writes:
On Friday, 9 April 2021 at 21:37:51 UTC, Independent wrote:
 World needs a safe language statically typed language without 
 GC but simpler than rust. D's biggest win against rust is that 
 it has much better interop than rust with C++. If we make D a 
 no GC,safe language it can easily beat rust. GC can be 
 optional. No company wants to rip and replace existing c++ 
 code. Why would some want to use D since go with GC is already 
 there which is backed by a big corp. Their marketing made GC 
 good. However good D is compared to Go, its hard to suceed with 
 GC. This is just my opinion. well wisher.
If we got seamless reuse of existing c++ or translation to D, that would be the big thing imo. Actually, if the porting process could be improved/highly automated that would probably be the biggest win since then you'd have D all the way = nirvana.
Apr 10
parent reply evilrat <evilrat666 gmail.com> writes:
On Saturday, 10 April 2021 at 07:07:19 UTC, Imperatorn wrote:
 If we got seamless reuse of existing c++ or translation to D, 
 that would be the big thing imo.

 Actually, if the porting process could be improved/highly 
 automated that would probably be the biggest win since then 
 you'd have D all the way = nirvana.
Oh I've seen you on github gentool discussion, actually you can try to convert C++ code using gentool by adding .cpp to sources list, it is not restricted to headers and might work for standalone libraries that doesn't rely on STL too much.
Apr 10
parent Imperatorn <johan_forsberg_86 hotmail.com> writes:
On Saturday, 10 April 2021 at 09:20:27 UTC, evilrat wrote:
 On Saturday, 10 April 2021 at 07:07:19 UTC, Imperatorn wrote:
 If we got seamless reuse of existing c++ or translation to D, 
 that would be the big thing imo.

 Actually, if the porting process could be improved/highly 
 automated that would probably be the biggest win since then 
 you'd have D all the way = nirvana.
Oh I've seen you on github gentool discussion, actually you can try to convert C++ code using gentool by adding .cpp to sources list, it is not restricted to headers and might work for standalone libraries that doesn't rely on STL too much.
Yeah, I haven't really tried it yet. Will do in the coming week ­čŹÇ
Apr 10
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Paulo Pinto <pjmlp progtools.org> writes:
On Friday, 9 April 2021 at 21:37:51 UTC, Independent wrote:
 World needs a safe language statically typed language without 
 GC but simpler than rust. D's biggest win against rust is that 
 it has much better interop than rust with C++. If we make D a 
 no GC,safe language it can easily beat rust. GC can be 
 optional. No company wants to rip and replace existing c++ 
 code. Why would some want to use D since go with GC is already 
 there which is backed by a big corp. Their marketing made GC 
 good. However good D is compared to Go, its hard to suceed with 
 GC. This is just my opinion. well wisher.
to be more serious about their optimisation efforts, https://devblogs.microsoft.com/aspnet/grpc-performance-improvements-in-net-5/ Not only that, they started to port runtime code from C++ into https://devblogs.microsoft.com/dotnet/announcing-net-6-preview-3/ Unity keeps their effort to migrate core engine code from C++ nogc, while leaving the remaining part of the engine to regular What D needs is fixing bugs, finishing some language feature and be the best at its thing. Doing a D vs Rust vs C++ feature check list, won't go anywhere, mainstream languages get picked due to ecosystems and OS SDKs, not due to whatever language feature makes to the frontage of hacker news.
Apr 10
parent aberba <karabutaworld gmail.com> writes:
On Saturday, 10 April 2021 at 08:06:15 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
 On Friday, 9 April 2021 at 21:37:51 UTC, Independent wrote:
 [...]
started to be more serious about their optimisation efforts, [...]
Why do I agree with you this much? ­čĄö
Apr 10
prev sibling parent reply Dylan Graham <dylan.graham2000 gmail.com> writes:
On Friday, 9 April 2021 at 21:37:51 UTC, Independent wrote:
 World needs a safe language statically typed language without 
 GC but simpler than rust. D's biggest win against rust is that 
 it has much better interop than rust with C++. If we make D a 
 no GC,safe language it can easily beat rust. GC can be 
 optional. No company wants to rip and replace existing c++ 
 code. Why would some want to use D since go with GC is already 
 there which is backed by a big corp. Their marketing made GC 
 good. However good D is compared to Go, its hard to suceed with 
 GC. This is just my opinion. well wisher.
If you want absolute safety, just use Rust. Let D be D.
Apr 10
parent reply Max Haughton <maxhaton gmail.com> writes:
On Saturday, 10 April 2021 at 15:50:51 UTC, Dylan Graham wrote:
 On Friday, 9 April 2021 at 21:37:51 UTC, Independent wrote:
 World needs a safe language statically typed language without 
 GC but simpler than rust. D's biggest win against rust is that 
 it has much better interop than rust with C++. If we make D a 
 no GC,safe language it can easily beat rust. GC can be 
 optional. No company wants to rip and replace existing c++ 
 code. Why would some want to use D since go with GC is already 
 there which is backed by a big corp. Their marketing made GC 
 good. However good D is compared to Go, its hard to suceed 
 with GC. This is just my opinion. well wisher.
If you want absolute safety, just use Rust. Let D be D.
Why should D be unsafe?
Apr 10
parent Dylan Graham <dylan.graham2000 gmail.com> writes:
On Saturday, 10 April 2021 at 18:57:39 UTC, Max Haughton wrote:
 On Saturday, 10 April 2021 at 15:50:51 UTC, Dylan Graham wrote:
 On Friday, 9 April 2021 at 21:37:51 UTC, Independent wrote:
 World needs a safe language statically typed language without 
 GC but simpler than rust. D's biggest win against rust is 
 that it has much better interop than rust with C++. If we 
 make D a no GC,safe language it can easily beat rust. GC can 
 be optional. No company wants to rip and replace existing c++ 
 code. Why would some want to use D since go with GC is 
 already there which is backed by a big corp. Their marketing 
 made GC good. However good D is compared to Go, its hard to 
 suceed with GC. This is just my opinion. well wisher.
If you want absolute safety, just use Rust. Let D be D.
Why should D be unsafe?
The only premise OP has offered is Rust but simpler(TM). I'm not saying D should be unsafe, but coming in with the basis of Rust but simpler(TM) and no explanation what that means or how to achieve it, then yeah, it's an open ended moot point. Especially after saying no one wants to use D with GC (so I assume D's metaprogramming, UCFS, contract programming, etc means nothing) because Go exists and then says D should be like Rust, when Rust exists. D is a community project. If you want it to change, write a DIP, commit some code or donate. I want D to be better in the embedded world, so I've been writing a suitable runtime and I've donated to the foundation.
Apr 10