www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.learn - C++ or D?

reply Mark <forillown cream.pink> writes:
Hi all,

my question would be about using D or not using D. Is the newest 
C++ iteration any good compared to D?

The reason I haven't used C++ anymore for years is that I was too 
naive sometimes. I tried to use new features in Visual C++, found 
myself being like a beta-tester for some things.

And the way C++ was always able to frustrate me is mainly, when 
undefined behavior takes too long to take effect. Sometimes I 
must have had bad luck, or I'm too silly. But for some subtle 
bugs in my hobbyist C++ past the solution would have been to 
rewrite a lot of code. Sometimes it was just too much work to get 
anything done at all.

When I used shared pointers, it got better. But it got a little 
bit ugly, too. And in general, being encouraged or forced to 
write boiler plate code was also frustrating.

I haven't looked into the newest C++. In theory, they might have 
added something helpful in the past years.

Anyone have any thoughts how C++ and D compare?
Nov 09 2020
next sibling parent Paul Backus <snarwin gmail.com> writes:
On Tuesday, 10 November 2020 at 01:00:50 UTC, Mark wrote:
 Anyone have any thoughts how C++ and D compare?
Broadly speaking: D has a better core language, and C++ has a much better library and tooling ecosystem.
Nov 09 2020
prev sibling next sibling parent "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> writes:
On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 01:00:50AM +0000, Mark via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
[...]
 my question would be about using D or not using D. Is the newest C++
 iteration any good compared to D?
[...]
 I haven't looked into the newest C++. In theory, they might have added
 something helpful in the past years.
 
 Anyone have any thoughts how C++ and D compare?
It depends on what you're looking for, what you're trying to do, and what you expect. If you're looking for good tooling, top-notch IDE integration, extensive libraries, etc., then D might not be for you. That's not to say there *isn't* good tooling, IDE integration, or libraries; they are there, but there are rough corners that some people might find frustrating. Also, if you're looking for widespread adoption and employment opportunities, you might find D is not quite there yet. However, if you're looking for language qualities, like expressive power, productivity, scalability, ease of writing, ease of maintenance, metaprogramming, or just general programming language sanity (less pathological language constructs, gotchas, etc.), I *definitely* recommend D over C++. Any day, hands down. And I say this as an ex-C++ programmer who has renounced C++ almost a decade ago and never looked back since. My experience with D has been so good, I've been totally ruined; I can't stand writing code in any other language anymore. Every time I have to face C or C++, or worse, Java, I chafe inside, wishing that I could use this or that D feature. Don't get me wrong; D has its own share of dark corners and WATs, but compared to C++, it's a mere scratch vs. a festering, infected wound that is quickly turning necrotic and requires immediate surgery or amputation. Every time I'm forced to work with C++ code I feel an urge to disinfect my hands with something strong... but all I need is to write some D and the urge vanishes. ;-) YMMV, though. :-D T -- What did the alien say to Schubert? "Take me to your lieder."
Nov 09 2020
prev sibling next sibling parent Guillaume Piolat <first.name guess.com> writes:
On Tuesday, 10 November 2020 at 01:00:50 UTC, Mark wrote:
 Hi all,

 Anyone have any thoughts how C++ and D compare?
C++ has a bit more mathematical feeling, everything has been sorted out in the spec, even if the rules are crazy difficult. D feels like it's up to _you_ to write the spec as you discover things in the compiler. C++ code feels a bit more cast in stone than any other language, you can't move around things as quickly, and you won't be willing to. But as you wrote the lines slower, likely you were a bit more careful too as a side-effect. If you write a small command-line tool, using D vs C++ will be appreciably more productive. Just std.process will speed up things by a lot, for this kind of work Phobos really shines. I don't think it makes the same difference for large projects. Learning D is something that can be almost finished, whereas with C++ you have to aggressively conquer new features from the standard one by one, and unfortunately C++ evolves faster than you can assimilate C++. Generally when you meet a C++ programmer, you are meeting someone who has given up the hope to have a full understanding of the language and instead stay strategically on a useful, codebase-specific subset (eg: if you learn about std:unique_ptr, you can avoid to learn about most of move semantics so that's a good learning investment). D lets you think more about your problem domain, and less about language things. Don't know precisely why. If you are deeply immersed in C++ everyday, you won't see that problem, but it's there. It's as if the culture of C++ was "complexity is free", there is little attempt to contain it. And it shows in the small things, for example: - D atomics (core.atomic) has 11 public functions and defined 5 memory models. - C++ atomics <atomic> has 29 functions and 6 memory models. It doesn't seem like much, but there is a bit _more of everything_ you can count. All in all as a D replacement C++ seems a bit lacking, unless you want a particular domain-specific library that only exists in C++. I'm sure with a bit more effort, it could be a bit more attractive to the vast masses of D programmers.
Nov 09 2020
prev sibling next sibling parent realhet <real_het hotmail.com> writes:
On Tuesday, 10 November 2020 at 01:00:50 UTC, Mark wrote:
 Hi all,

 my question would be about using D or not using D.
Here are some things you will NOT get in D: youtube -> Dconf 2014 Day 2 Keynote: The Last Thing D Needs -- Scott Meyers For example, you will not get neurosis from it, or badly infected wounds someone mentioned earlier :D I also like the fast compile times, and the compile time programming, the ability that you can program D in D if you wish.
Nov 09 2020
prev sibling next sibling parent Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQ=?= <ola.fosheim.grostad gmail.com> writes:
On Tuesday, 10 November 2020 at 01:00:50 UTC, Mark wrote:
 I haven't looked into the newest C++. In theory, they might 
 have added something helpful in the past years.
I guess you could say that the latest version of C++ allows you to write code that is a little bit less verbose than before. C++ itself won't really change drastically because of backwards compatibility. In my opinion it is not a suitable language for hobbyists, as you need to spend a lot of time with it (measured in years) to become proficient... and basically, if you don't use C++ on a regular basis, there are details that are easy to forget. D has some of those issues too, but D can be used more like a high level language.
Nov 11 2020
prev sibling next sibling parent reply hgriffin <grif greenmail.com> writes:
C++ is a really overloaded with features language. The burden of 
backward compatibility and source compatibility with C doesn't 
make it any better. But right now it's the only right choice for 
development. There are plenty of libraries for many common tasks, 
a big community and the most important thing - C++ is evolving. 
Evolution is not as fast as we would want, but it's here.
On the other side, D is really pleasant to work with, it has many 
good features and it can be a really convenient tool for small 
projects. But at the same time it's just not mature and not 
suitable for serious development. If you choose it, you'll face 
with lots of issues without a solution. Nobody from the D 
community would help you other than "just don't use const", "we 
haven't developed a concensus yet", "we can't convince Walter", 
etc. You can look at the D's evolution history and approximate it 
into the future. Years go by, nothing's changing. It's 
stagnating. The biggest D's problem is poor management and it's 
not going to change in any foreseeable time.
Nov 12 2020
parent reply Godnyx <rempas tutanota.com> writes:
On Thursday, 12 November 2020 at 09:35:10 UTC, hgriffin wrote:
 C++ is a really overloaded with features language. The burden 
 of backward compatibility and source compatibility with C 
 doesn't make it any better. But right now it's the only right 
 choice for development. There are plenty of libraries for many 
 common tasks, a big community and the most important thing - 
 C++ is evolving. Evolution is not as fast as we would want, but 
 it's here.
 On the other side, D is really pleasant to work with, it has 
 many good features and it can be a really convenient tool for 
 small projects. But at the same time it's just not mature and 
 not suitable for serious development. If you choose it, you'll 
 face with lots of issues without a solution. Nobody from the D 
 community would help you other than "just don't use const", "we 
 haven't developed a concensus yet", "we can't convince Walter", 
 etc. You can look at the D's evolution history and approximate 
 it into the future. Years go by, nothing's changing. It's 
 stagnating. The biggest D's problem is poor management and it's 
 not going to change in any foreseeable time.
Hi! Can you be more specific about the problems someone is gonna face with D that can't be fixed? This is very important for me because I'm planning to use D for development in the near (I wish near) future and I want to know what's going on. So yeah some examples will be appreciated!
Dec 19 2020
parent reply frame <frame86 live.com> writes:
On Saturday, 19 December 2020 at 09:06:33 UTC, Godnyx wrote:
 Hi! Can you be more specific about the problems someone is 
 gonna face with D that can't be fixed? This is very important 
 for me because I'm planning to use D for development in the 
 near (I wish near) future and I want to know what's going on. 
 So yeah some examples will be appreciated!
It's not the problem mentioned but I had to struggle with DLLs and D's Variant-type. The problem is that Variant uses TypeInfo which does not pass DLL boundaries correctly so that int != int in runtime even it's in fact a simple int. If you need to exchange unknown data between a DLL and your application you need to get a workaround and cannot use that elsewhere settled nice feature. But it's a Windows specific issue - it works as expected on other systems.
Dec 23 2020
parent reply evilrat <evilrat666 gmail.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 23 December 2020 at 18:03:56 UTC, frame wrote:
 It's not the problem mentioned but I had to struggle with DLLs 
 and D's Variant-type. The problem is that Variant uses TypeInfo 
 which does not pass DLL boundaries correctly so that int != int 
 in runtime even it's in fact a simple int.

 If you need to exchange unknown data between a DLL and your 
 application you need to get a workaround and cannot use that 
 elsewhere settled nice feature. But it's a Windows specific 
 issue - it works as expected on other systems.
Which is basically same as in C++, despite the fact it does have real working SO/DLL runtime's many large projects have their own RTTI implementation. LLVM has its own RTTI because standard type info is "inefficient", Unreal Engine has its own, IIRC Qt too has its own, etc... Same thing with D Variant, some people say it is "inefficient"... so we ended up having multiple libraries. Not saying anything about how good or bad all this, just the facts.
Dec 23 2020
parent reply RSY <rsy_881 gmail.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 23 December 2020 at 19:00:14 UTC, evilrat wrote:
 On Wednesday, 23 December 2020 at 18:03:56 UTC, frame wrote:
 It's not the problem mentioned but I had to struggle with DLLs 
 and D's Variant-type. The problem is that Variant uses 
 TypeInfo which does not pass DLL boundaries correctly so that 
 int != int in runtime even it's in fact a simple int.

 If you need to exchange unknown data between a DLL and your 
 application you need to get a workaround and cannot use that 
 elsewhere settled nice feature. But it's a Windows specific 
 issue - it works as expected on other systems.
Which is basically same as in C++, despite the fact it does have real working SO/DLL runtime's many large projects have their own RTTI implementation. LLVM has its own RTTI because standard type info is "inefficient", Unreal Engine has its own, IIRC Qt too has its own, etc... Same thing with D Variant, some people say it is "inefficient"... so we ended up having multiple libraries. Not saying anything about how good or bad all this, just the facts.
C++ you need to write duplicate code (.h and .cpp) C++ you need to care about header include order C++ you need to forward declare everything you gonna use if it is not included before C++ you need to waste time waiting for compile C++ you need to fight to get proper reflection D is much more superior to C++ in my opinion, proper package manager, great compile time, great module system, great interop with C and C++ You can use GC, you can disable it, you can use malloc, it suits all your need! Can't find a lib? use a C or C++ one, that is what makes D so much powerfull, you don't have to give up on other ecosystem, you can embrace them in your project
Dec 24 2020
next sibling parent sighoya <sighoya gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, 24 December 2020 at 08:36:54 UTC, RSY wrote:
 You can use GC, you can disable it, you can use malloc, it 
 suits all your need!
Not to forget the availability of refcounted (shared) and unique ptr too in D.
Dec 25 2020
prev sibling parent reply Paulo Pinto <pjmlp progtools.org> writes:
On Thursday, 24 December 2020 at 08:36:54 UTC, RSY wrote:
 On Wednesday, 23 December 2020 at 19:00:14 UTC, evilrat wrote:
 On Wednesday, 23 December 2020 at 18:03:56 UTC, frame wrote:
 It's not the problem mentioned but I had to struggle with 
 DLLs and D's Variant-type. The problem is that Variant uses 
 TypeInfo which does not pass DLL boundaries correctly so that 
 int != int in runtime even it's in fact a simple int.

 If you need to exchange unknown data between a DLL and your 
 application you need to get a workaround and cannot use that 
 elsewhere settled nice feature. But it's a Windows specific 
 issue - it works as expected on other systems.
Which is basically same as in C++, despite the fact it does have real working SO/DLL runtime's many large projects have their own RTTI implementation. LLVM has its own RTTI because standard type info is "inefficient", Unreal Engine has its own, IIRC Qt too has its own, etc... Same thing with D Variant, some people say it is "inefficient"... so we ended up having multiple libraries. Not saying anything about how good or bad all this, just the facts.
C++ you need to write duplicate code (.h and .cpp) C++ you need to care about header include order C++ you need to forward declare everything you gonna use if it is not included before C++ you need to waste time waiting for compile
Fixed with C++20 modules. I am already playing with the experimental support on VC++.
 C++ you need to fight to get proper reflection
Coming in C++23, and partially available already with a mix of type traits and constexpr. I am all good for D vs C++, but one needs to update their knowledge specially when the audience is up to date with latest ISO C++'s capabilities.
Dec 30 2020
next sibling parent reply RSY <rsy_881 gmail.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 30 December 2020 at 21:03:36 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
 On Thursday, 24 December 2020 at 08:36:54 UTC, RSY wrote:
 On Wednesday, 23 December 2020 at 19:00:14 UTC, evilrat wrote:
 On Wednesday, 23 December 2020 at 18:03:56 UTC, frame wrote:
 It's not the problem mentioned but I had to struggle with 
 DLLs and D's Variant-type. The problem is that Variant uses 
 TypeInfo which does not pass DLL boundaries correctly so 
 that int != int in runtime even it's in fact a simple int.

 If you need to exchange unknown data between a DLL and your 
 application you need to get a workaround and cannot use that 
 elsewhere settled nice feature. But it's a Windows specific 
 issue - it works as expected on other systems.
Which is basically same as in C++, despite the fact it does have real working SO/DLL runtime's many large projects have their own RTTI implementation. LLVM has its own RTTI because standard type info is "inefficient", Unreal Engine has its own, IIRC Qt too has its own, etc... Same thing with D Variant, some people say it is "inefficient"... so we ended up having multiple libraries. Not saying anything about how good or bad all this, just the facts.
C++ you need to write duplicate code (.h and .cpp) C++ you need to care about header include order C++ you need to forward declare everything you gonna use if it is not included before C++ you need to waste time waiting for compile
Fixed with C++20 modules. I am already playing with the experimental support on VC++.
 C++ you need to fight to get proper reflection
Coming in C++23, and partially available already with a mix of type traits and constexpr. I am all good for D vs C++, but one needs to update their knowledge specially when the audience is up to date with latest ISO C++'s capabilities.
and you still have the predeclaration issue, since the whole process is done 1 way and this is the summary of the whole C++ has X, but it is either half backed, or just plain bloated you can't say c++ will have module without saying it is implemented poorly, you still have the dirty and ugly quirks D module system remains superior because the whole experience is just plain superior and more sane
Dec 30 2020
parent RSY <rsy_881 gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, 31 December 2020 at 07:07:04 UTC, RSY wrote:
 On Wednesday, 30 December 2020 at 21:03:36 UTC, Paulo Pinto 
 wrote:
 On Thursday, 24 December 2020 at 08:36:54 UTC, RSY wrote:
 On Wednesday, 23 December 2020 at 19:00:14 UTC, evilrat wrote:
 On Wednesday, 23 December 2020 at 18:03:56 UTC, frame wrote:
 It's not the problem mentioned but I had to struggle with 
 DLLs and D's Variant-type. The problem is that Variant uses 
 TypeInfo which does not pass DLL boundaries correctly so 
 that int != int in runtime even it's in fact a simple int.

 If you need to exchange unknown data between a DLL and your 
 application you need to get a workaround and cannot use 
 that elsewhere settled nice feature. But it's a Windows 
 specific issue - it works as expected on other systems.
Which is basically same as in C++, despite the fact it does have real working SO/DLL runtime's many large projects have their own RTTI implementation. LLVM has its own RTTI because standard type info is "inefficient", Unreal Engine has its own, IIRC Qt too has its own, etc... Same thing with D Variant, some people say it is "inefficient"... so we ended up having multiple libraries. Not saying anything about how good or bad all this, just the facts.
C++ you need to write duplicate code (.h and .cpp) C++ you need to care about header include order C++ you need to forward declare everything you gonna use if it is not included before C++ you need to waste time waiting for compile
Fixed with C++20 modules. I am already playing with the experimental support on VC++.
 C++ you need to fight to get proper reflection
Coming in C++23, and partially available already with a mix of type traits and constexpr. I am all good for D vs C++, but one needs to update their knowledge specially when the audience is up to date with latest ISO C++'s capabilities.
and you still have the predeclaration issue, since the whole process is done 1 way and this is the summary of the whole C++ has X, but it is either half backed, or just plain bloated you can't say c++ will have module without saying it is implemented poorly, you still have the dirty and ugly quirks D module system remains superior because the whole experience is just plain superior and more sane
And you can't say C++23 will have Y therfore it is a reasonable choice TODAY No, it's either you have it or you don't, everyone can implement Z, even Rust borrow checker, that doesn't make language 0 relevant when you compare solutions TODAY And even more when you take into account that D is interopable with both C/C++ Invalidating D, just because X Y Z will have K and have poorly implemented N, is very unfortunate, BAD, and plain SAD, because you just don't care about what D has to offer when you take into account the whole feature set
Dec 30 2020
prev sibling parent reply RSY <rsy_881 gmail.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 30 December 2020 at 21:03:36 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
 On Thursday, 24 December 2020 at 08:36:54 UTC, RSY wrote:
 On Wednesday, 23 December 2020 at 19:00:14 UTC, evilrat wrote:
 On Wednesday, 23 December 2020 at 18:03:56 UTC, frame wrote:
 It's not the problem mentioned but I had to struggle with 
 DLLs and D's Variant-type. The problem is that Variant uses 
 TypeInfo which does not pass DLL boundaries correctly so 
 that int != int in runtime even it's in fact a simple int.

 If you need to exchange unknown data between a DLL and your 
 application you need to get a workaround and cannot use that 
 elsewhere settled nice feature. But it's a Windows specific 
 issue - it works as expected on other systems.
Which is basically same as in C++, despite the fact it does have real working SO/DLL runtime's many large projects have their own RTTI implementation. LLVM has its own RTTI because standard type info is "inefficient", Unreal Engine has its own, IIRC Qt too has its own, etc... Same thing with D Variant, some people say it is "inefficient"... so we ended up having multiple libraries. Not saying anything about how good or bad all this, just the facts.
C++ you need to write duplicate code (.h and .cpp) C++ you need to care about header include order C++ you need to forward declare everything you gonna use if it is not included before C++ you need to waste time waiting for compile
Fixed with C++20 modules. I am already playing with the experimental support on VC++.
 C++ you need to fight to get proper reflection
Coming in C++23, and partially available already with a mix of type traits and constexpr. I am all good for D vs C++, but one needs to update their knowledge specially when the audience is up to date with latest ISO C++'s capabilities.
It's like the story with the GC You want everyone to like D because it has a GC despite it being not updated in ages, and proved to not scale well You do the same with modules and reflections now, D is clearly better but for some reasons you don't want people to believe that, worse you want people to see them as inferior to the poor C++ one, because you clearly didn't mention any of that poor 1 phase compilation model What is your goal here? you for sure don't want D to take off
Dec 30 2020
next sibling parent reply RSY <rsy_881 gmail.com> writes:
C++ you need to write duplicate code (.h and .cpp)
 C++ you need to care about header include order

 C++ you need to forward declare everything you gonna use if it 
 is not included before

 C++ you need to waste time waiting for compile
Fixed with C++20 modules. --- He said fixed with c++20 modules, when you still have to predeclare everything, as it is was a better solution LOL, i can't believe it, bad worm
Dec 30 2020
parent reply RSY <rsy_881 gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, 31 December 2020 at 07:23:17 UTC, RSY wrote:
 C++ you need to write duplicate code (.h and .cpp)
 C++ you need to care about header include order

 C++ you need to forward declare everything you gonna use if it 
 is not included before

 C++ you need to waste time waiting for compile
Fixed with C++20 modules. --- He said fixed with c++20 modules, when you still have to predeclare everything, as it is was a better solution LOL, i can't believe it, bad worm
``` export module app; export int main() { say_hi(); } void say_hi() { printf("hi\n"); } ``` // error C3861: 'say_hi': identifier not found Ohhhh it doesn't compile, it doesn't know what say_hi is, wow great c++ module system Clearly supperior to D /s
Dec 30 2020
parent reply RSY <rsy_881 gmail.com> writes:
Sorry for the spam, but this is because of people like him that 
people like me (i discovered D recently) that can't be aware of 
why D is a great language

They diminish all arguments that makes D better than alternatives


You guys have to help me fight that kind of behavior, because it 
doesn't help D, as if it was their goal, do they want to make 
sure D doesn't eat specific market share, so some other language 
can? fishy fishy
Dec 30 2020
parent reply Imperatorn <johan_forsberg_86 hotmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, 31 December 2020 at 07:32:31 UTC, RSY wrote:
 Sorry for the spam, but this is because of people like him that 
 people like me (i discovered D recently) that can't be aware of 
 why D is a great language

 They diminish all arguments that makes D better than 
 alternatives


 You guys have to help me fight that kind of behavior, because 
 it doesn't help D, as if it was their goal, do they want to 
 make sure D doesn't eat specific market share, so some other 
 language can? fishy fishy
I have found that these kinds of language wars often get nowhere. Just use D and be happy and let others use C++ and let them be happy. But they should be aware that C++ *as a language* has a long way to go before it gets all the features etc that D has. Maybe 2023, maybe 2027, who knows. Maybe that's fine for them, but not for me.
Dec 31 2020
next sibling parent reply Ola Fosheim Grostad <ola.fosheim.grostad gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, 31 December 2020 at 09:57:01 UTC, Imperatorn wrote:
 On Thursday, 31 December 2020 at 07:32:31 UTC, RSY wrote: 
 nowhere. Just use D and be happy and let others use C++ and let 
 them be happy. But they should be aware that C++ *as a 
 language* has a long way to go before it gets all the features 
 etc that D has. Maybe 2023, maybe 2027, who knows. Maybe that's 
 fine for them, but not for me.
Which features are you most concerned about? I think the feature set is quite similar. D is less verbose and is easier to use for high level programming, but the clang++ and g++ have fewer bugs and quirks than the D compilers. The biggest difference is that C++ cannot change much, but D can! D really ought to make more of that advantage... More streamlining even if it breaks stuff.
Dec 31 2020
parent reply Imperatorn <johan_forsberg_86 hotmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, 31 December 2020 at 11:29:55 UTC, Ola Fosheim 
Grostad wrote:
 On Thursday, 31 December 2020 at 09:57:01 UTC, Imperatorn wrote:
 On Thursday, 31 December 2020 at 07:32:31 UTC, RSY wrote: 
 nowhere. Just use D and be happy and let others use C++ and 
 let them be happy. But they should be aware that C++ *as a 
 language* has a long way to go before it gets all the features 
 etc that D has. Maybe 2023, maybe 2027, who knows. Maybe 
 that's fine for them, but not for me.
Which features are you most concerned about? I think the feature set is quite similar. D is less verbose and is easier to use for high level programming, but the clang++ and g++ have fewer bugs and quirks than the D compilers. The biggest difference is that C++ cannot change much, but D can! D really ought to make more of that advantage... More streamlining even if it breaks stuff.
I was a bit unclear. I meant features as in built in language constructs etc, not necessarily like keywords and so on. Hmm, regarding features I'd like in C++, maybe better metaprogramming and fewer keywords? Haven't thought about that https://github.com/AnthonyCalandra/modern-cpp-features
Dec 31 2020
parent Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQ=?= <ola.fosheim.grostad gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, 31 December 2020 at 18:13:40 UTC, Imperatorn wrote:
 I was a bit unclear. I meant features as in built in language 
 constructs etc, not necessarily like keywords and so on.
You mean like associative arrays and dynamic arrays? If so then I guess people have different taste, I think it was a mistake to make those builtins... I find code harder to read when symbols (e.g. "!") have so many meanings in D. I am creating my own experimental unicode-syntax now where each symbol has only one meaning... kinda like a prototype for testing the idea of using the full unicode charset for programming. So not necessarily a D specific issue, but D is a nice testbed for experimenting as it has so many features.
 Hmm, regarding features I'd like in C++, maybe better 
 metaprogramming and fewer keywords? Haven't thought about that
I've never run into meta programming problems that I cannot deal with in C++ in way that works out ok in the end, but sometimes you have to search the web. Fortunately there are many "recipes" for big languages... without that... uhm. Then C++ would be a very difficult thing to handle :-D. What I don't like about C++ is that things get verbose, but verbosity has some advantages when programs get very large because then you need more context to understand what is going on and where things are coming from. It isn't obvious that something that is good for a medium sized program will be good for a very large program (e.g. "where did this symbol come from?"). You won't really find out until you've tried... but most D programs are small, so. No need to worry about that...
Dec 31 2020
prev sibling parent reply Sebastiaan Koppe <mail skoppe.eu> writes:
On Thursday, 31 December 2020 at 09:57:01 UTC, Imperatorn wrote:
 On Thursday, 31 December 2020 at 07:32:31 UTC, RSY wrote:
 Sorry for the spam, but this is because of people like him 
 that people like me (i discovered D recently) that can't be 
 aware of why D is a great language

 They diminish all arguments that makes D better than 
 alternatives


 You guys have to help me fight that kind of behavior, because 
 it doesn't help D, as if it was their goal, do they want to 
 make sure D doesn't eat specific market share, so some other 
 language can? fishy fishy
But they should be aware that C++ *as a language* has a long way to go before it gets all the features etc that D has. Maybe 2023, maybe 2027, who knows. Maybe that's fine for them, but not for me.
Au contraire; I find that C++ has modernised relatively successful and has a lot of great proposals in the pipeline. Of course they may all get rejected, but even if only some of them get accepted, C++ starts to have a leg up on D in my opinion. It could take a few years indeed, but what will D do in that same time window?
Dec 31 2020
next sibling parent reply Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQ=?= <ola.fosheim.grostad gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, 31 December 2020 at 14:56:37 UTC, Sebastiaan Koppe 
wrote:
 It could take a few years indeed, but what will D do in that 
 same time window?
What would you like to see?
Dec 31 2020
parent reply Sebastiaan Koppe <mail skoppe.eu> writes:
On Thursday, 31 December 2020 at 16:03:54 UTC, Ola Fosheim 
Grøstad wrote:
 On Thursday, 31 December 2020 at 14:56:37 UTC, Sebastiaan Koppe 
 wrote:
 It could take a few years indeed, but what will D do in that 
 same time window?
What would you like to see?
For shared to mean something. Stackless coroutines. Compile-time lifetime management, i.e. better ways to define ownership.
Dec 31 2020
parent reply Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQ=?= <ola.fosheim.grostad gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, 31 December 2020 at 19:27:23 UTC, Sebastiaan Koppe 
wrote:
 On Thursday, 31 December 2020 at 16:03:54 UTC, Ola Fosheim 
 Grøstad wrote:
 What would you like to see?
For shared to mean something. Stackless coroutines. Compile-time lifetime management, i.e. better ways to define ownership.
I second that. At least some way to know whether a pointer takes ownership (GC/RC) or just is an auxiliary reference.
Dec 31 2020
parent reply RSY <rsy_881 gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, 31 December 2020 at 19:57:53 UTC, Ola Fosheim 
Grøstad wrote:
 On Thursday, 31 December 2020 at 19:27:23 UTC, Sebastiaan Koppe 
 wrote:
 On Thursday, 31 December 2020 at 16:03:54 UTC, Ola Fosheim 
 Grøstad wrote:
 What would you like to see?
For shared to mean something. Stackless coroutines. Compile-time lifetime management, i.e. better ways to define ownership.
I second that. At least some way to know whether a pointer takes ownership (GC/RC) or just is an auxiliary reference.
i agree with this, C++ has GC, smart pointer and even some facilities for ownership via various move semantic that is an area where D could improve, but that would be catch up with C++.. one big move would be to finally put the allocators out of std.experimental, and finally embrace this everywhere (just like ziglang)
Jan 01
parent reply Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQ=?= <ola.fosheim.grostad gmail.com> writes:
On Friday, 1 January 2021 at 15:01:15 UTC, RSY wrote:
 one big move would be to finally put the allocators out of 
 std.experimental, and finally embrace this everywhere (just 
 like ziglang)
I am bit torn on this, the less the compiler knows about allocation strategies, the less opportunity there are for the compiler to be smart about allocations. So, those things ought to be language constructs, not library constructs. At least if D is going to stay in the lane of high level programming. (Zig is firmly staking ground in the manual-labour department, as far as I can tell.)
Jan 01
parent reply SealabJaster <sealabjaster gmail.com> writes:
On Friday, 1 January 2021 at 15:12:43 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad 
wrote:
 On Friday, 1 January 2021 at 15:01:15 UTC, RSY wrote:
 one big move would be to finally put the allocators out of 
 std.experimental, and finally embrace this everywhere (just 
 like ziglang)
I am bit torn on this, the less the compiler knows about allocation strategies, the less opportunity there are for the compiler to be smart about allocations. So, those things ought to be language constructs, not library constructs. At least if D is going to stay in the lane of high level programming. (Zig is firmly staking ground in the manual-labour department, as far as I can tell.)
Slightly off but also on topic but, has there been any general consensus yet around standard pointer types (e.g. shared_ptr) and standard allocator-aware data structures, or just in general any discussions around non-GC memory management as part of Phobos/core parts of D outside of "use/write a library"? (And for completely off-topic: What are the plans for std.experimental packages right now? Is std.experimental.logging just going to sit there until the end of time?)
Jan 01
parent reply Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQ=?= <ola.fosheim.grostad gmail.com> writes:
On Friday, 1 January 2021 at 16:23:45 UTC, SealabJaster wrote:
 Slightly off but also on topic but, has there been any general 
 consensus yet around standard pointer types (e.g. shared_ptr) 
 and standard allocator-aware data structures, or just in 
 general any discussions around non-GC memory management as part 
 of Phobos/core parts of D outside of "use/write a library"?
I don't know anything about any official positions other than the fact that Walter dislikes having more than one pointer type and is working on some kind of "liveness" verification for a C-style free/malloc regime, which is rather rare in other languages these days. Not really sure how that fits with modern code bases. Isn't there some work on move-semantics to make C++ interfacing better? But shared_ptr is only for C++ interop, perhaps? Or is it meant for D-code? To me it looks like things are a bit up-in-the-air at the moment. And well, having many options that are incompatible would not be good for library interop, so choices have to be made to avoid "tower of Babel". *shrugs*
Jan 01
parent reply SealabJaster <sealabjaster gmail.com> writes:
On Friday, 1 January 2021 at 16:45:16 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad 
wrote:
 I don't know anything about any official positions other than 
 the fact that Walter dislikes having more than one pointer type 
 and is working on some kind of "liveness" verification for a 
 C-style free/malloc regime, which is rather rare in other 
 languages these days. Not really sure how that fits with modern 
 code bases.

 Isn't there some work on move-semantics to make C++ interfacing 
 better? But shared_ptr is only for C++ interop, perhaps? Or is 
 it meant for D-code?

 To me it looks like things are a bit up-in-the-air at the 
 moment.
Unsurprising answers unfortunately :( As for the move-semantics, I know that DIP 1014 was accepted, but I don't know anything beyond that (haven't really looked into it at all tbh).
 And well, having many options that are incompatible would not 
 be good for library interop, so choices have to be made to 
 avoid "tower of Babel".
This is a concern of mine, especially when D touts about the GC being optional, but I do have doubts about any ground being made on this front, either in discussions, decisions, or implementations, within the next year or two. Meanwhile I believe C++ (keep in mind I very rarely touch or look at C++) already has a standard allocator interface that parts of the STL (and I assume libraries, when/if they care) are able to use? I'm unaware of the issues it might have in C++, but that's mostly because of my lack of use and knowledge of the language. It has standard pointer types, etc. I wonder what problems D faces in comparison to C++ and other languages in this regard, since it's been in a limbo, fragmented state for a while now.
Jan 01
parent Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQ=?= <ola.fosheim.grostad gmail.com> writes:
On Friday, 1 January 2021 at 18:00:57 UTC, SealabJaster wrote:
 Meanwhile I believe C++ (keep in mind I very rarely touch or 
 look at C++) already has a standard allocator interface that 
 parts of the STL (and I assume libraries, when/if they care) 
 are able to use? I'm unaware of the issues it might have in 
 C++, but that's mostly because of my lack of use and knowledge 
 of the language. It has standard pointer types, etc.
So, C++ had the same issues as D prior to C++11, that you had many many different options, but none of them were standard... Which was ok if you used one big framework, but if you wanted to mix libraries... yuck. Since C++11 things are looking better although it obviously takes time for frameworks/libraries to catch up. In C++ everything is up to the library/programmer so there is basically no way for the compiler to be particularly clever with heap allocations, although it can be clever with values (e.g. stack allocations). So, that is an area where D could be bold make the compiler smart, and do better than C++, but that takes some courage. C++ smart pointers do allow for custom allocators, but then the owning pointers will have an extra field for referencing it, which is used for deallocation. I suspect most people don't use it, but it might be important for creating nice C++ wrappers for C libraries?
 I wonder what problems D faces in comparison to C++ and other 
 languages in this regard, since it's been in a limbo, 
 fragmented state for a while now.
Mostly a lack of strategic decision making? Just map out the various alternatives and pick a combination that is "wholesome". (Do you want to be a bird and fly or a fish that can swim? Being neither bird nor fish isn't working in the long run, I don't think so.)
Jan 01
prev sibling parent Imperatorn <johan_forsberg_86 hotmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, 31 December 2020 at 14:56:37 UTC, Sebastiaan Koppe 
wrote:
 On Thursday, 31 December 2020 at 09:57:01 UTC, Imperatorn wrote:
 On Thursday, 31 December 2020 at 07:32:31 UTC, RSY wrote:
 [...]
But they should be aware that C++ *as a language* has a long way to go before it gets all the features etc that D has. Maybe 2023, maybe 2027, who knows. Maybe that's fine for them, but not for me.
Au contraire; I find that C++ has modernised relatively successful and has a lot of great proposals in the pipeline. Of course they may all get rejected, but even if only some of them get accepted, C++ starts to have a leg up on D in my opinion. It could take a few years indeed, but what will D do in that same time window?
That's true, but until that happens D is superior. Time will tell 😊
Dec 31 2020
prev sibling next sibling parent Ola Fosheim Grostad <ola.fosheim.grostad gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, 31 December 2020 at 07:17:45 UTC, RSY wrote:
 It's like the story with the GC

 You want everyone to like D because it has a GC despite it 
 being not updated in ages, and proved to not scale well
Fun fact: the c++ GC Oilpan ( used in Chrome ) has more features than the one in D...
Dec 30 2020
prev sibling parent Paulo Pinto <pjmlp progtools.org> writes:
On Thursday, 31 December 2020 at 07:17:45 UTC, RSY wrote:
 On Wednesday, 30 December 2020 at 21:03:36 UTC, Paulo Pinto 
 wrote:
 On Thursday, 24 December 2020 at 08:36:54 UTC, RSY wrote:
 On Wednesday, 23 December 2020 at 19:00:14 UTC, evilrat wrote:
 [...]
C++ you need to write duplicate code (.h and .cpp) C++ you need to care about header include order C++ you need to forward declare everything you gonna use if it is not included before C++ you need to waste time waiting for compile
Fixed with C++20 modules. I am already playing with the experimental support on VC++.
 C++ you need to fight to get proper reflection
Coming in C++23, and partially available already with a mix of type traits and constexpr. I am all good for D vs C++, but one needs to update their knowledge specially when the audience is up to date with latest ISO C++'s capabilities.
It's like the story with the GC You want everyone to like D because it has a GC despite it being not updated in ages, and proved to not scale well You do the same with modules and reflections now, D is clearly better but for some reasons you don't want people to believe that, worse you want people to see them as inferior to the poor C++ one, because you clearly didn't mention any of that poor 1 phase compilation model What is your goal here? you for sure don't want D to take off
It would be nice to see D taking off, I just happen not to be blind to the competition. That is the beauty of being an enterprise polyglot consultant, I get to pick what customers want, and they want eco-systems and platforms. Which not only use GC in domains that D fails to, also get to catch up with almost every feature that made D a better choice 10 years ago. Blind advocacy won't get new users.
Jan 01
prev sibling parent reply Imperatorn <johan_forsberg_86 hotmail.com> writes:
On Tuesday, 10 November 2020 at 01:00:50 UTC, Mark wrote:
 Hi all,

 my question would be about using D or not using D. Is the 
 newest C++ iteration any good compared to D?

 [...]
https://ibb.co/syQRs9v
Dec 29 2020
parent reply Rekel <paultjeadriaanse gmail.com> writes:
On Tuesday, 29 December 2020 at 16:13:50 UTC, Imperatorn wrote:
 https://ibb.co/syQRs9v
I hope I'm not the only one that thinks 'designers and std lib writers unable to name anything correctly' is kind of ironic. And don't get me started on documentation return values.
Dec 30 2020
parent reply Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQ=?= <ola.fosheim.grostad gmail.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 30 December 2020 at 14:17:38 UTC, Rekel wrote:
 On Tuesday, 29 December 2020 at 16:13:50 UTC, Imperatorn wrote:
 https://ibb.co/syQRs9v
I hope I'm not the only one that thinks 'designers and std lib writers unable to name anything correctly' is kind of ironic. And don't get me started on documentation return values.
Most of the statements are wrong too... "Forgot null terminator": that is C, not C++. "undecidable grammer": wrong, not context free != undecidable "can't execute arbitrary functions at compile time": same as D, more or less "4732 features, but not a single one you actually want": wrong again, C++20 has features that people would like to see in D "unsatisfying standard library": not really, unless you need to avoid exceptions "template metaprogramming only capable of being understood by mensa member": some aspects of C++20 metaprogramming is easier than D "multiple-inheritance hell": no idea what this means, MI is usually used for the same as D interfaces "iterators": and ranges... Anyway, bashing C++ does not get D anywhere. At best it makes D users look uninformed.
Dec 30 2020
parent reply sighoya <sighoya gmail.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 30 December 2020 at 14:41:28 UTC, Ola Fosheim 
Grøstad wrote:
 Most of the statements are wrong too...
 "4732 features, but not a single one you actually want": wrong 
 again, C++20 has features that people would like to see in D
Could you elaborate a bit more, please? I'm interested.
 "unsatisfying standard library": not really, unless you need to 
 avoid exceptions

 "template metaprogramming only capable of being understood by 
 mensa member": some aspects of C++20 metaprogramming is easier 
 than D
That would me interest, too!
 "multiple-inheritance hell": no idea what this means, MI is 
 usually used for the same as D interfaces
Just to say, I think not including multiple inheritance was a mistake for Java and all its descendants, though not a big one. Multiple inheritance needs just a good convention, that's all.
Dec 30 2020
parent reply Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQ=?= <ola.fosheim.grostad gmail.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 30 December 2020 at 18:24:41 UTC, sighoya wrote:
 On Wednesday, 30 December 2020 at 14:41:28 UTC, Ola Fosheim 
 Grøstad wrote:
 Most of the statements are wrong too...
 "4732 features, but not a single one you actually want": wrong 
 again, C++20 has features that people would like to see in D
Could you elaborate a bit more, please? I'm interested.
Some people in the D community has for a long time wanted stack-less coroutines. This is now available in C++20, and maybe D can borrow the C++ implementation for LDC? That is an interesting possibility for sure.
 "template metaprogramming only capable of being understood by 
 mensa member": some aspects of C++20 metaprogramming is easier 
 than D
That would me interest, too!
The main addition for C++20 is concepts. Basically wrapping up ugly tests in a simple template parameter type specifier so that you can specify that a template parameter MUST support Addition or be a Stack or whatever you want to require with very simple syntax. (It also makes it easier to specify tests.) Btw, did D ever get to add nested template parameters? I know people asked for it a long time ago, but cannot remember if that was resolved somehow?
 Just to say, I think not including multiple inheritance was a 
 mistake for Java and all its descendants, though not a big one.

 Multiple inheritance needs just a good convention, that's all.
I almost never use multiple inheritance myself, but if you don't use it, it does not affect you at all? So how could it be a problem to have the option? *shrugs*
Dec 30 2020
parent reply sighoya <sighoya gmail.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 30 December 2020 at 18:45:03 UTC, Ola Fosheim 
Grøstad wrote:
 Some people in the D community has for a long time wanted 
 stack-less coroutines. This is now available in C++20, and 
 maybe D can borrow the C++ implementation for LDC? That is an 
 interesting possibility for sure.
Hmm, I don't know much about them, but it seems they are a restriction to stackful coroutines, maybe a keyword addition like stackless to prohibit nested suspension does the trick?
 The main addition for C++20 is concepts. Basically wrapping up 
 ugly tests in a simple template parameter type specifier so 
 that you can specify that a template parameter MUST support 
 Addition or be a Stack or whatever you want to require with 
 very simple syntax. (It also makes it easier to specify tests.)
In my eyes, adding proper support for opImplicitCoercion enables the reuse of interfaces as typeclasses, yielding more potential for idiomatic development than utilizing C++ concepts alone.
 Btw, did D ever get to add nested template parameters? I know 
 people asked for it a long time ago, but cannot remember if 
 that was resolved somehow?
Oh, what's this? Did you mean true Higher Kinded Types (HKT) ``` fun(R,S,T:R=>S) ``` That would be great, but they're simply arguing to use alias symbols instead. The downside with aliases is however a more restricted type inference: https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/bf5157d3dc29a591826e22d188448fbc04ca81b2/DIPs/DIP1023.md https://forum.dlang.org/thread/dnyqxmgdazczwmmvayjx forum.dlang.org?page=4
 I almost never use multiple inheritance myself, but if you 
 don't use it, it does not affect you at all? So how could it be 
 a problem to have the option? *shrugs*
It's right, at least theoretically, practically you are often forced to use the feature in order to utilize the functionality you need. But the more general point against this was the clash of fields and methods. However, this is akin to the problem with generic specialization, and likewise it can be solved by simply defining a new default instance, that's it.
Dec 30 2020
parent reply Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQ=?= <ola.fosheim.grostad gmail.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 30 December 2020 at 19:24:19 UTC, sighoya wrote:
 In my eyes, adding proper support for opImplicitCoercion 
 enables the reuse of interfaces as typeclasses, yielding more 
 potential for idiomatic development than utilizing C++ concepts 
 alone.
Not sure what you mean? A D interface is a dynamic runtime feature?
 Btw, did D ever get to add nested template parameters? I know 
 people asked for it a long time ago, but cannot remember if 
 that was resolved somehow?
Oh, what's this? Did you mean true Higher Kinded Types (HKT) ``` fun(R,S,T:R=>S) ```
Sort of, in C++ it would be something like this template<template<typename> class OuterName> void myfunction(OuterName<int> x){ stuff(); }
 That would be great, but they're simply arguing to use alias 
 symbols instead. The downside with aliases is however a more 
 restricted type inference:
That is clearly a type unification bug. An alias isn't an alias if it interferes with type unification!
Dec 30 2020
parent reply jmh530 <john.michael.hall gmail.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 30 December 2020 at 19:51:07 UTC, Ola Fosheim 
Grøstad wrote:
 [snip]

 Sort of, in C++ it would be something like this

 template<template<typename> class OuterName>
 void myfunction(OuterName<int> x){ stuff(); }

 [snip]
You mean like this struct Foo(T) { T x; } void foo(T : Foo!V, V)(T x) { import std.stdio: writeln; writeln("here"); } void main() { Foo!int x; foo(x); }
Dec 30 2020
parent reply Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQ=?= <ola.fosheim.grostad gmail.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 30 December 2020 at 20:42:49 UTC, jmh530 wrote:
 You mean like this

 struct Foo(T)
 {
     T x;
 }

 void foo(T : Foo!V, V)(T x) {
Not quite, "Foo" would be a template parameter, so something like this (which does not work, but maybe there is some other way to express it?): struct Foo(T) { T x; } void foo(T)(T!int x) { import std.stdio: writeln; writeln("here"); } void main() { Foo!int x; foo(x); }
Dec 30 2020
parent reply sighoya <sighoya gmail.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 30 December 2020 at 21:12:43 UTC, Ola Fosheim 
Grøstad wrote:
(which does not work, but maybe there is some other
 way to express it?):
See: https://forum.dlang.org/thread/ooxzbrmbrzpsefirosor forum.dlang.org?page=1
Dec 30 2020
parent Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQ=?= <ola.fosheim.grostad gmail.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 30 December 2020 at 21:17:25 UTC, sighoya wrote:
 On Wednesday, 30 December 2020 at 21:12:43 UTC, Ola Fosheim 
 Grøstad wrote:
(which does not work, but maybe there is some other
 way to express it?):
See: https://forum.dlang.org/thread/ooxzbrmbrzpsefirosor forum.dlang.org?page=1
Ok, so basically just add alias: void foo(alias T)(T!int x) { Ok. :)
Dec 30 2020