On 31/05/2015 11:37 a.m., Danni Coy via Digitalmars-d wrote:
I have been doing my first serious attempt at D after convincing other
people that it was the way to go quite a few years ago. (My copy of
"The D Programming Language" doesn't have Andrei's name on it so it
would have been around that time)
and these are the things which are fresh for me.
I had no idea that it was so easy to call C code from my D code, and
how little effort I had to go to disguise the fact that it was C code
thanks mostly to UFCS and @property.
This makes it feasible to write bindings on the fly and makes me a lot
less hesitant to try using it for any job I could use C or C++.
So far so good.
Now lets get to the friction points.
Tooling - it's still a step down from what I am used to with C/C++ on
linux. This is now for me at the point where it is acceptable but not
great.
Documentation - What is there is generally quite good, also quite
terse. I am not seeing a huge number D specific results whenever I
search on any issues I am having with my code.
The Standard Library. I want to use D so I can do more with less hours
writing code and less hours debugging code. Having a high quality
standard library really helps this - unfortunately for me the first
thing I needed from the standard library was xml parsing, which the
documentation tells me is sub par and will be replaced in the near
future, There is no indication of what I might like to use instead. Do
I now use one of the other xml libraries floating around, bind a C
based one or roll my own. All this eats into the efficiency that I am
gaining by virtue of D being a really nice language.
Ahh std.xml, it's been that way for years.
We NEED to get that replaced. Although don't hold your breath :/
