Using D

[H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d]

On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 04:54:39PM +0000, Chris via Digitalmars-d wrote:
[...]
> I remember Java used to be "theeee" best thing ever. After years of
> using it, however, I found out how restricted the language was / is.
> Still, it's been a success, because people believed all the
> propaganda. What matters to me is not so much the odd fancy feature,
> it's how well the language performs in general purpose programming.
[...]

I remember how I was skeptical of Java from day 1. Call me a cynic, but
everytime I hear something being overhyped, I immediately assign
whatever it is being hyped about as a second class product, and regard
it with suspicion. Same goes with cloud computing, which, as Nick likes
to say, is just marketing propaganda for "the internet".

When I finally got past the hype and tried out the language for myself,
I found the same thing you did: it's totally straitjacketed, and shoves
the OO idealogy down your throat even when it obviously doesn't fit. The
infamous long-winded "class MyLousyApp { public static void main(blah
blah blah) ... }" is a prime example of shoehorning something obviously
non-OO into an OO paradigm, just because we want to.  Not to mention
Java's verbosity, which is only tolerable with IDE support -- total
fail, in my book. I mean, hello, we're talking about a *language*
intended for *humans* to communicate with the computer? If we need
*another* program to help us elucidate this communication, something's
gone very, very wrong with the language. A language that needs a machine
to help you write, is by definition a language for communication between
*machines*, not between humans and machines.

Then there's the lack of generics until the n'th revision, and when it
finally came, it was lackluster (google for issues caused by type
erasure in Java sometime). D totally beats Java in this area IMO.

That's not to say that Java, the language, (as opposed to the class
library or the marketing hype) isn't a pretty good language. In fact,
it's quite a beautiful language -- in the idealistic, ivory tower,
detached-from-real-life sense of being a perfect specimen suitable for a
museum piece. Its disconnect from the messy real world, unfortunately,
makes it rather painful to use in real-life. Well, except with the help
of automated tools like IDEs and what-not, which makes one wonder, if we
need a machine to help us communicate with a machine, why not just write
assembly language instead? But I digress. :-P


[...]
> Mind you, D is a hindsight language, which makes it wiser. Does it
> have flaws? Yes. I come across them sometimes. Is there a language
> without flaws? If there is, tell me about it.

When I was still using C/C++ for my personal projects, the problems I
keep running into drove me to dream about what I'd like in an ideal
language. I tried writing my own, but didn't get very far -- not
everyone is a Walter Bright, after all. ;-) So I searched online instead
-- and found that D is the one language that's closest to my idea of
what an ideal language should be. There are some things about it that
aren't quite up to my ideals, but there are also many other areas where
it *exceeded* my ideals. So in spite of whatever warts or wrinkles D may
have, it's still the best language out there IMO.


> I'm very pragmatic, D is a good tool and, being community driven,
> there is a real chance of making it a fantastic tool.  Individual
> features are not everything.

Agreed, it's the synergy of multiple complementary features coming
together, that really makes the language shine. Templates + CTFE +
static if, is one example I can think of. Together, they make a total
killer combination in the world of metaprogramming IMO. I'm sure you can
think of several other synergistic combinations in D.


T

-- 
Claiming that your operating system is the best in the world because
more people use it is like saying McDonalds makes the best food in the
world. -- Carl B. Constantine