core.sys.posix.setjmp unavailable for OS X?
Is there a reason that it's unavailable on OS X when it works fine on Linux? The functions exist on OS X, and it's easy enough to compile C programs using setjmp there; but not D programs. I don't think I'm getting a betterC experience on the Mac. I'd also ask why the there are no D docs for core.sys.posix but I read the responses to the last time the question was asked and now I'm D-pressed. :-(
Re: [Semi-OT] I don't want to leave this language!
On Tuesday, 6 December 2016 at 22:47:34 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: On Tuesday, December 06, 2016 22:13:54 bpr via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote: On Tuesday, 6 December 2016 at 17:00:35 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: Sure, there are folks who would prefer not to have to deal with the GC but throw out the runtime and std lib? You lose out on too much for it to be at all worth it for many folks. At that point, C++11/14/17 looks far more appealing, especially as it continues to improve. It's a counterfactual at this point, but I would guess that if D had left out the GC in 2010 when D2 came out it would have been ahead of C++ in many ways and perhaps would have been able to peel off more C++ programmers and achieve the momentum that Rust appears to have now. Yes, it would be missing some features on account of omitting GC, but D2 -GC in 2010 is still much better than C++ 2011. As C++ absorbs D features, the case for D seems weaker. We get plenty of folks who aren't big C/C++ programmers who are interested in D. Yes, the majority seem to have a C++ background, but we also get folks from C#, python, ruby, etc. It would be nice to see a breakdown. From where I sit, it appears that most of the interest in D is from C++ users, and it doesn't appear that D popularity is rising so much. Any data that belies that sad assessment?
Re: [Semi-OT] I don't want to leave this language!
On Tuesday, 6 December 2016 at 22:23:25 UTC, bachmeier wrote: On Tuesday, 6 December 2016 at 22:13:54 UTC, bpr wrote: Those programmers who are comfortable working in a GC-ed language will likely eschew D because D's GC is really not that great. So someone working with Ruby is not going to want to work with D because of GC performance? Ruby programmers are probably not concerned with performance at all ever. It's a slow interpreted language with a GIL. But if you're on a Rails project, that's what you'll use. If I really *want* to use a GC, say I'm writing a server and I believe that a well tuned GC will allow my server to stay alive much longer with less fragmentation, I'll probably skip D and pick Go or maybe (hmmm...) even Java because their GCs have had a lot of engineering effort. I wonder what percentage of Ruby programmers have thought about garbage collection ever. Why would a Ruby or Python programmer unconcerned with performance want to switch to D? I'm sure there are some who would, but I'd imagine they're rare.
Re: [Semi-OT] I don't want to leave this language!
On Tuesday, 6 December 2016 at 17:00:35 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: So, while there are certainly folks who would prefer using D as a better C without druntime or Phobos, I think that you're seriously overestimating how many folks would be interested in that. Certainly, all of the C++ programmers that I've worked with professionally would have _zero_ interest in D as a better C. I would guess that the vast majority of interest shown in Rust is from people who essentially want a better C or C++, with no runtime/GC. So, I think Ilya's point is very plausible. D with no GC, but with modules, templates, overloading, CTFE, and some other features might have been more tempting to the no-GC crowd, which includes many hardcore C++ programmers. Those programmers who are comfortable working in a GC-ed language will likely eschew D because D's GC is really not that great.
