On 4/19/2017 3:58 AM, Laeeth Isharc wrote:
I think not enough has been written on D's plasticity - Andrei and Walter talk
about it in passing a couple of times. But I have the impression that it's
maybe quite important for merits of D's real world commercial value. Compare
using refactoring tools with not really needing them to same extent.
It's a really hard idea to get across.
Back when I wrote in C and C++, usually the first algorithm and data structure I
picked persisted through to the end of life of the program. I'd optimize the
hell out of it, but I didn't change it.
But with D, I find I redo the algorithms and data structures, trying to find one
that works better. The Warp project is a particular example of that.
In C/C++, changing the algorithm/data structure meant rewriting the program. D
makes it easy to change that without major rewrites, so it's much more likely
that I'll be willing to change it.
Other explanations for this are:
1. I'm better at encapsulating algorithms and data structures
2. D's unit test feature makes me much more confident in making changes.
I can't help but think it is more than that. In D my programs just go together
faster, and have fewer bugs. The code tends to look more like a solution to the
problem rather than a mass of ->::<> and other syntax.
But these things are hard to get across in a presentation, so instead I talk
about features, and the audience goes "well I can do that in C++/Rust/Go" even
if it is awkward or requires a 3rd party tool or whatever.
