Fact checking for my talk
ZombineDev via Digitalmars-d
digitalmars-d at puremagic.com
Sun Aug 14 11:05:12 PDT 2016
On Saturday, 13 August 2016 at 12:47:40 UTC, Ethan Watson wrote:
> So I fly to Cologne tomorrow morning, and will be presenting on
> Tuesday. Got my talk written, gave it a dry run at the office
> and got feedback on it. Seems to be in a good spot.
>
> But before I go up and feature compare to other languages,
> it'll be a good idea to get my facts right.
>
> There's three spots in my talk where I go through some D code,
> and then show a table indicating whether the features I used in
> those examples are available in other, trendier languages. In
> some cases, the features become available with after-market add
> ons. But I'm focusing exclusively on stuff you can get out of
> the box, ie write some code and compile it with a stock
> DMD/LDC/GDC/SDC install and it'll Just Work(TM).
>
> So here's a dodgy table indicating the features I'm showing on
> the slides, and the languages that are most relevant to game
> developers - C# and Swift - with Rust thrown in since that's
> the new language everyone knows about.
>
> If I've got something wrong with the out-of-the-box solution,
> please let me know. If there is something you can do with an
> add-on, also let me know since it will allow me to prepare for
> the inevitable audience questions saying "but you can do this
> with this etc etc"
>
>
> | Rust | Swift | C# |
> -----------------------------|---------+---------+---------|
> Template Constraints | Y | Y | where | [1]
> -----------------------------|---------+---------+---------|
> Template "if" Constraints | where | where | where |
> -----------------------------|---------+---------+---------|
> static if | N | N | N |
> -----------------------------|---------+---------+---------|
> Eponymous templates | N | N | N |
> -----------------------------|---------+---------+---------|
> Compile time reflection | N | N | N |
> -----------------------------|---------+---------+---------|
> CTFE | N | N | N |
> -----------------------------|---------+---------+---------|
> User defined attributes | Crates | Runtime | Y |
> -----------------------------|---------+---------+---------|
> Deep function inspection | N | N | N |
> -----------------------------|---------+---------+---------|
> Mixins | N | N | N* | [2]
> -----------------------------|---------+---------+---------|
>
> [1] Limited comparisons can be made with template where
> constraints
> [2] Mixins in swift are essentially traits and protocol
> extentions, not like D mixins at all
> static if N
Rust does have an extremely limited form of static if -
`#[cfg()]` [1] - similar to C#'s #if and D's `version ()` which
(AFAIU [2]) can only test build-time constants. There's a cfg!
macro [3] in the standard library which allows to evaluate (at
CT) the expression for example in `if` statements, but it wont
[4] delete the not-taken branch (so the code in both branches
must be valid), which makes it quite useless. I found a `cfg_if!`
macro in their libc FFI bindings [5], which it looks like it [6]
can disable the not taken branch, but still, it's quite incapable
compared to D's `static if`.
> User defined attributes
As per [7] currently you're not allowed to create your own
attributes, only the Rust compiler defines them. From my
understanding they're a syntax used for what `pragma`, `extern`
and dub.json are used in D (in Rust packages (a.k.a crates) are
built into the language). Rust attributes also cover many things
for which usually the C/C++ __attribute__ extension is used. So I
would say "N" on this one. Also note that in contrast with D,
where attributes don't change the behavior of the attributed
symbol, in Rust they're strictly used for controlling behavior.
> Eponymous templates N
> Compile time reflection N
Yeah, definitely no.
> Mixins N
> CTFE N
I would say that Rust macros are the closest thing to string
mixins, but are still light years away, because they can't be
generated imperatively like you can in D with CTFE. OTOH, they're
used in more places in their standard library, than mixins are
used in Phobos, because of the lack of variadic templates,
because in Rust you can't generalize over mutability, like you
can in D with `inout` and also because of the stupidly designed
trait system (e.g. see [9]). From my understanding of Rust
macros, they're kind of like the AliasSeq algorithms in std.meta
(because they're declarative), but instead of operating on
sequences (e.g. template arguments lists) they operate on Rust's
AST (e.g. statements and expressions). Actually I guess you can
say that they're similar to D's template mixins, with the
exception that template mixins can't mix expressions and
statements into your code - Rust macros operate at the AST level,
whereas D template mixin's are a bit higher-level, closer to the
type system.
| Rust | Swift | C# | D |
C++ |
--------------------|---------+---------+---------+--------+---------+
Compiler plugins | Y [8] | N | Roslyn | N |
Clang |
--------------------|---------+---------+---------+--------|---------+
However their compiler plugin systems looks quite fleshed-out [8]
(at least compared to D's situation) so that's one
metaprogramming area where definitely Rust has the lead.
[1]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/book/conditional-compilation.html
[2]:
https://doc.rust-lang.org/reference.html#conditional-compilation
[3]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/macro.cfg!.html
[4]: https://users.rust-lang.org/t/cfg-macro-for-features/1337
[5]:
https://github.com/rust-lang/libc/blob/0.2.15/src/macros.rs#L9
[6]:
https://github.com/rust-lang/libc/blob/0.2.15/src/windows.rs#L10
[7]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/book/attributes.html
[8]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/book/compiler-plugins.html
[9]:
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/libcore/slice.rs#L804
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list