On Tuesday, 9 February 2016 at 17:41:34 UTC, NX wrote:
On Tuesday, 9 February 2016 at 14:35:48 UTC, Ola Fosheim
Grøstad wrote:
Not incredibly high level abstraction... But I get what you
mean. It is fairly high level for a low level language.
Coming from C#, it looks amazing but probably not that
incredible when coming from C++.
If D had parity with C++ features and didn't have it's own set of
inconsistencies it could do a lot better. But the lack of
willingness to change probably means that a new language will
come along instead of D improving.
Right now D sits somewhere between C++/Rust and Swift/Go, which
might not be the best position. It is natural that people will
gravitate towards either end. If you don't want to deal with
memory management use Swift/Go, if you want to optimize memory
management go C++/Rust.
So you want this to be worked on (as D has a horribly slow
one)?
I would want it to be solved rather than being worked on...
which requires design change which is probably not going to
happen. There is still room for improvement though.
I think it would help a lot if there was a broad effort to
refactor and document the compiler. If the compiler is difficult
to change it becomes more difficult to experiment and there will
be much more resistance to changing semantics...
