Article discussing Go, could well be D

[Daniel Gibson]

Am 09.06.2011 03:24, schrieb Adam D. Ruppe:
>> OTOH libraries are (hopefully) tested and stable
> 
> That's what they *want* you to think! :-P
> 
> Of course, I'm exaggerating a little, but I stand by it in many
> cases: yeah, there's some hard stuff like crypto and gui, but
> most stuff isn't that bad.
> 

I agree.
Something else that comes to mind are database bindings - native D
bindings that allow you to use D types and integrate well with ranges
etc would certainly be preferable to using raw C bindings.

> For that hard stuff though, there's always C libraries. The
> popular C libs are generally fairly stable and not hard to use
> in D, license permitting.
> 

As long as not too many macros or custom types are involved and getting
the D bindings isn't too hard

> (Sometimes I think people forget that D has a *bigger* library
> ecosystem than C, since every C library is also usable from D!
> And thanks to D features, like scope guards and array ops, they
> tend to be pretty easy to use straight up too.)
> 
> 
>> Another example is GUI libraries
> 
> Aye, GUI is the biggest example of hard stuff to implement well
> that's also hard to use from C.
> 
> Crypto isn't bad since C libraries implement them with a pretty
> easy interface; it's generally just a handful of functions in
> my experience. (Contrast to guis where it's often hundreds of
> classes each with dozens of methods and callbacks... just writing
> out their prototypes can take a while!)

Ok