C++ or D?

SealabJaster sealabjaster at gmail.com
Fri Jan 1 18:00:57 UTC 2021


On Friday, 1 January 2021 at 16:45:16 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad 
wrote:
> I don't know anything about any official positions other than 
> the fact that Walter dislikes having more than one pointer type 
> and is working on some kind of "liveness" verification for a 
> C-style free/malloc regime, which is rather rare in other 
> languages these days. Not really sure how that fits with modern 
> code bases.
>
> Isn't there some work on move-semantics to make C++ interfacing 
> better? But shared_ptr is only for C++ interop, perhaps? Or is 
> it meant for D-code?
>
> To me it looks like things are a bit up-in-the-air at the 
> moment.

Unsurprising answers unfortunately :(

As for the move-semantics, I know that DIP 1014 was accepted, but 
I don't know anything beyond that (haven't really looked into it 
at all tbh).

> And well, having many options that are incompatible would not 
> be good for library interop, so choices have to be made to 
> avoid "tower of Babel".

This is a concern of mine, especially when D touts about the GC 
being optional, but I do have doubts about any ground being made 
on this front, either in discussions, decisions, or 
implementations, within the next year or two.

Meanwhile I believe C++ (keep in mind I very rarely touch or look 
at C++) already has a standard allocator interface that parts of 
the STL (and I assume libraries, when/if they care) are able to 
use? I'm unaware of the issues it might have in C++, but that's 
mostly because of my lack of use and knowledge of the language. 
It has standard pointer types, etc.

I wonder what problems D faces in comparison to C++ and other 
languages in this regard, since it's been in a limbo, fragmented 
state for a while now.


More information about the Digitalmars-d-learn mailing list