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