On Mon, 2017-06-19 at 19:07 +0000, Ecstatic Coder via Digitalmars-d wrote: > […] > > But Go still doesn't have proper generics, which keeps it > light-years behind D in terms of expressivity.
Go doesn't have, and likely will never have, generics in the C++, D, Chapel sense, but then Rust doesn't either. Go has two routes for achieving the goal that C++ generics (and hence D and Chapel generics) were intended for. You have to use the idiomatic approach for the language. Saying Go is behind D is missing the point that the languages are different and have to be used differently to achieve the same goal. > Still time to convince people to use D instead of Go then... The only way of doing this is to have lots of problems programmed idiomatically in D, Go, Rust, Kotlin, with unbiased compare and contrast notes. You end up finding different languages are best in different problems. Which is hardly a surprise. Generally it is the libraries that are the truly key factors. And do not underestimate personal choice, different language gel with different people (though there is some Stockholm Syndrome effect with some people). For me just now, D beats C++ for working with Gtk and GStreamer. For other problems I go with Go, or partake of Python. C++17, or more likely C++20, may make C++ interesting again. I though C++11 had, but in the end it didn't. -- Russel. ============================================================================= Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: sip:russel.win...@ekiga.net 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: rus...@winder.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
