On Tue, 05 Oct 2010 12:52:22 +0200 >>>>>> "Simen" == "Simen kjaeraas" <simen.kja...@gmail.com> wrote:
Simen> This is a big problem for D at this point. The language is no Simen> longer evolving (much), and we're at a point in time where Simen> libraries and toolchain parts need to be written. That's nice to hear and it's solvable. Simen> It will. Latest news (2 days ago) say it's now getting as far as Simen> main(), which is good. Great! Simen> I believe GDC supports ARM. Hmm, baes on http://dgcc.sourceforge.net/ it looks it is not overly active? Simen> There's a list here: Simen> http://www.wikiservice.at/d/wiki.cgi?DatabaseBindings Simen> Simen> However, most of those are for D1, and a large percentage seem Simen> to be abandoned. :-( Simen> SQLite seems to be well supported, with 7 projects claiming Simen> support. Why so many? Similar to Haskell where one can find bunch of libs doing practically the same thing, but most of them half-baked. Simen> I'm sure you can. D also supports programming styles closer to Simen> those of FP, making such a transition easier (I hope :p) This is certainly bonus. Simen> > a) maintainable code Simen> Simen> This is likely a bit subjective, and much more dependent upon the Simen> programmers themselves than the language used. I agree. Otoh, afaict, D use modules/packages, so code can be nicely organized, as well as in Haskell. Simen> - Contract programming in the form of pre and post contracts for Simen> functions[1]. Simen> - Class invariants[2]. Simen> - Built in unit testing[3]. Simen> - Documentation comments[4]. Simen> Simen> Of course, other features of D may increase maintainability, but Simen> those are the ones most directly associated with it. Not bad.;) Simen> > b) decent performance Simen> Simen> D is generally as fast as C, though some abstractions of course Simen> cost more than others. This is, probably, more than we'd need, but definitely no fear as with e.g. Python & co. Simen> > c) higher-level programming and suitable for general Simen> > programming tasks Simen> Simen> My impression (not having used Haskell), D wins hands down on the Simen> latter, and is a bit weaker on the former. Still, I believe, D provides much more comfortable higher-order experience than C++. Simen> > d) good library support (database stuff, data structures, Qt Simen> > GUI...) Simen> Simen> Likely Haskell is better here (as noted above, D has some Simen> problems in this regard). Lack of GUI libs for D2 is serious concern atm. Simen> The bus-factor of D is sadly close to 1. If Walter should choose Simen> to leave, we have a problem. On the other hand, I don't think a Simen> mere bus would keep him from continuing the project. Uhh...this is almost like a showstopper or, at least, very strong anti-adoption pattern. :-( It is even worse than Haskell where GHC has bus-factor >=2 and there are other compilers like uhc, lhc, jhc...there is even Haskell committee working on Haskell' (prime) standard. Simen> Here I can't help. I don't know Haskell. Thanks a lot. It is helpful, although with a little discouraging end. :-( Sincerely, Gour -- Gour | Hlapicina, Croatia | GPG key: CDBF17CA ----------------------------------------------------------------
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
