On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 17:48:39 +0200 Jiří Techet <tec...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I agree it helps, but are there really no successful widespread > > languages that didn't have corporate backing? > > > > Unfortunately we're not living in the 70's or 80's, where the best had > a chance, and there's a lot of software written in the mainstream I think that's a bit pessimistic. > languages. These applications won't get rewritten just because some > better language appeared (or do you plan to rewrite geany in D? :-). > In the last 15 years the only successful languages were those where > some big company was behind (Java, C#). It's not normally a good idea to rewrite applications. But new applications could be written in a language like D or Go (obviously). Any successful language will need to interface well with C. > >> And it's fast. I spend one hour a day just > >> compiling with C++ code. > > > > A D developer says it's faster than Go at compiling, and it has > > templates: > > http://www.digitalmars.com/pnews/read.php?server=news.digitalmars.com&group=digitalmars.D&artnum=108831 > > Well, it really depends if he was compiling a single file or a library The link says: "So the go compiler compiles 120KLOC in 9.23 seconds. I got curious so I just tested dmd against Phobos (88KLOC). That takes 1.24 seconds on my laptop." Phobos is D's standard library, and includes templates quite a bit. > with many includes. What makes the compilation of C++ slow is that it > has to parse the same headers again and again every time they are > included (and all the includes inside the includes). This is > eliminated in go. If D uses includes, then it will be slow for big > projects too. It doesn't use includes per say, but compiler-generated .di files. C++ parsing is slow anyway because of templates. (I think both D and Go have ways to speed up compilation further). Regards, Nick _______________________________________________ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel