On Wednesday, 20 December 2017 at 09:16:34 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 20.12.2017 09:30, Thomas Mader wrote:
Interestingly he doesn't know about D
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=7724
Haven't read that one but it just shows it:
"Since I’ve mentioned D, I suppose this is also the point at
which I should explain why I don’t see it as a serious contender
to replace C. Yes, it was spun up eight years before Rust and
nine years before Go – props to Walter Bright for having the
vision. But in 2001 the example of Perl and Python had already
been set – the window when a proprietary language could compete
seriously with open source was already closing. The wrestling
match between the official D library/runtime and Tango hurt it,
too. It has never recovered from those mistakes."
So he doesn't know about the current state of D and I was
referring to the following comment from
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=7804:
">Eric, have you looked into D *lately*?
No. What’s it got that Go does not?
That’s not intended as a hostile question, I’m trying to figure
out where to focus my attention when I read up on it."
What I don't get is why he doesn't believe in good GC for C (my
previous post) but at the same time praising Go for it's GC.
What makes it easier to have a good GC in Go vs. in C?
I guess the GC in D has the same problems as a GC in C.
