D dropped in favour of C# for PSP emulator

[Alex Rønne Petersen]

On 11-05-2012 20:05, Mehrdad wrote:
> On Friday, 11 May 2012 at 17:47:06 UTC, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
>> Complicated language structure? Long compilation times?
>>
>> wat.
>
> I'd have to agree...
>
> Several things in D are really hard to understand if you don't already
> have a C++ background:
>
> 1. "templates": they seem to take in just about anything, and return
> just about anything. They can be pretty confusing, especially when you
> have to worry about overloading vs. specialization vs. constraints, or
> types vs. aliases...

Right, D's template system is definitely inspired by C++, no argument 
there. But in the vast majority of code, you really don't have to use 
templates for everything.

>
> 2. Tuples (I'm referring to both tuple() and TypeTuple()) are very
> confusing if you don't happen to suddenly "get" them.

I don't know about that. They seemed simple enough to me.

>
> 3. Ranges aren't confusing, but USING them certainly is.

On the contrary, I actually think we're lacking proper documentation on 
what ranges are.

>
> Don't believe me?
>
> Consider: In C#, you say Array.BinarySearch(arr) to search an array.
> It's VERY straightforward.
> In D, it's VERY CONFUSING -- there *is* no way to do this directly!
> Which led me to ask this question:
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4622377
> and the solution indeed was NOT something I would've found by myself
> without spending hours on it (which I already had partially done).

Library issue.

>
> 4. is(typeof(foo) U) is very confusing; it's completely unintuitive
>
> 5. For that matter, is() is completely unintuitive

Definitely. is() is an abomination.

>
> 6. The 'in' operator returns a pointer (instead of a boolean). Which is
> fine, except that it's not what you'd expect in any languages other than
> C/C++. i.e. Non-intuitive

I've always found it very intuitive actually... and it saves me from 
having to write extra code to do the actual lookup (speed isn't even the 
point here, I just want concise code).

>
> 7. __traits() are confusing

I have the same stance WRT __traits as I do for is(). We need a better 
solution to metaprogramming.

But again, most code really won't be doing all that much low-level 
metaprogramming.

>
> 8. there's more but I just can't think of them right now

-- 
- Alex