On Tuesday, 11 February 2014 at 17:55:36 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
better C++. It kinda sticks. Because people really want that.
I don't think so, at all. Anyone working on D must drop the
moniker "D is a better C++" like a bad habit, no two ways about
that. Most of it does it sets C++ as the benchmark. People who
already like C++ would be like "you wish" and people who hate
C++ would be like "better crap is not what I need anyway".
(I don't really agree, because whenever I use C++ I feel like
implementing my own language or recently: take another look at D.)
But for people looking for a system level programming language,
C++ is a baseline. So you will invariably be measured against it.
If you think in terms of "lost opportunities", I believe D looses
out by not providing a compiler switch that turns off the GC and
issues errors whenever GC-dependent constructs are being used.
Not elegant, but simple and makes it easy to start doing real
time programming because you then have achieved near parity with
C++ baseline requirements.
If you have limited resources you need to switch to thinking
about baselines, key requirements and where you loose your
audience.
D looses opportunities for growth by not having a stable release
that is perceived as current. You could (in theory) make a base
line release, by focusing on the compiler and the runtime,
pushing features that are not essential for forward compatibility
into the next release and only release the aspect of phobos you
are happy with.
A known current, stable and supported release makes it possible
to plan for others wanting to use D for production and would open
up for branches for their own projects, like real-time features.
I believe that by delaying a stable release in order to make it
feature complete, you loose out, because you move out of the
planning window (let's say 6-12 months) for those assessing
possible technologies.
We want to make D a great language all around, with
system-level access and also convenience features.
If you go too hard in the Application Language direction the
System Level will be less visible. And there is more of a future
for a system level compiled language with limited tool support.
It's there in <h2> at the top of our homepage: "Modern
convenience. Modeling power. Native efficiency."
Slogans doesn't tell me much, I think we talk past each other
here.
By the way, this whole "plop a vision page" thing doesn't seem
to be quite popular:
I think Rust's homepage and documentation is clear.
By "vision" I mean that future which the tool will bring with it
as it appears to the reader. That which brings excitement and
engagement: "I want that future".
Basically the long term goals. Those that you might not achieve
in generation 1, 2, 3… but which you are approaching.
What I found exciting about W.B.'s original D1 was those aspects
where D also would bring along semantics that make it possible to
optimize better than C/C++, such as whole program optimization.
It does not have to be in this generation of compilers to be
communicated as language goals.
Immutability, pure, templates etc are useful, but not exciting.
And not unique for D.
Anyway, I wish you the best of luck. I look forward to your next
stable release and hope to be able to adapt the stable runtime to
real time uses and make it available as patches for those
interested. A long running development branch is outside my time
window (e.g. I might have moved on to other things by the time it
can be expected to reach maturity).
Cheers,
Ola.
