On Saturday, 30 December 2017 at 16:59:41 UTC, aberba wrote:
In this video[1] from 2016, developer talks about C++ memory
safety features, meta-programming, maturity and few others as
main reasons they choose it for developing their blockchain
software (the way I got it from a quick view).
Besides, D maturity (which I can't confirm or deny), what else
does D miss to be considered a better alternative for
blockchain in 2018?
D is also more productive, has safety and unittest built-in.
1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4jq4frE5v4
I can talk about this first hand as I have a project running in
D. However, I would sadly not recommend D ATM for such a project
for 2 reasons:
1/ It is practically not possible to write efficient crypto
routines without cent/ucent, short of writing them in asm.
2/ The network layer become very tedious very quick because of
how broken shared is and because there is no ownership mechanism.
While none of this is present in C++ it doesn't get in your way
either.
I would *LOVE* to be able to use more D on a day to day basis,
but these 2 problems make it very hard. It is especially sad
considering 1/ could be solved very easily. It literally took me
less than 1h to add support for it in SDC.
