D vs Rust

[Laeeth Isharc via Digitalmars-d]

Guillaume Piolat
"- D is a large language, not sure how much relatively to Rust. 
I've heard Rust is complicated too."
and yet, it's easy to get started if you know C.  one can be 
quite quickly productive without having any experience of 
template metaprogramming, CTFE, and the like, and gradually 
absorb language features as you go.  Phobos is pretty readable, 
on the whole.  I agree with bearophile about GC making it easier 
in the beginning.

bearophile:
"I am sometimes able to write working D code almost as quickly as 
Python code"

Yes, indeed - that's my experience too.  I wonder what we could 
do to make this most of the time, if not almost always, and for 
less experienced programmers than you.  It wouldn't be surprising 
to find that the things that tend to get in the way fall in 
certain common categories.  Some people have applied machine 
learning to compilers to study this - that's probably beyond our 
resources for now, but the idea makes sense.  Adam's and others' 
work on error messages might be part of the answer.

Thank you for the colour on OcaML.  What could be done to improve 
Algebraic and pattern matching?  The talk at the London dmeetup 
was quite interesting, but I had the sense that was fairly 
experimental at this stage.

"There are several kinds of code that D allows you to write quite 
better than Rust (generic application code, script-like code, 
explorative scientific numerical code (like ndslice), 
medium-integrity code, metaprogramming, compile-time 
computations, template-level computations and specializations, 
higher order template magic, and so on. "

Should we make more of a feature of this in the intro page.  
Tutorials per category showing the value?  And should the Rosetta 
stone examples (many of which you wrote, as I understand it) be 
more prominently featured?  Maybe even in the code samples on the 
front page too.

"In Ada you can be productive if you use it for the purposes it 
was invented for, but most times you don't write that kind of 
code."
Thank you - yes that's what I figured, and it probably isn't for 
me.  But I wanted to see if I was missing something.

" I like languages that avoid me most common bugs,"
I wonder what the most common bugs and traps are in D.  P0nce's D 
idioms allude to some of them, but that isn't the focus of what 
he writes.

"I think D should relax and keep improving its strengths (like 
C++ interoperability), fix some of its holes (safety, GC-less 
programming, fixing its contract-driven programming experience, 
etc), improve its medium-integrity coding, and keep going on as 
usual, slowly getting better. The Rust and D niches are 
sufficiently different, there's minimal overlapping in their 
purposes and niches."

Yes - I completely agree.  As Peter Thiel says, competition is 
for losers.  Much better to have a monopoly that you have earned 
(and have to keep earning).  I agree with Knuth that language 
reflects thought and people intrinsically think differently (this 
also being shaped by the domain) - he welcomed the prospect of an 
expansion in the number and kinds of language available.

It's funny how the most negative critics in this forum and who 
make diffuse statements about how D has lost the race often don't 
seem to contribute much code to making things better.  Contrast 
with Manu, for example, who whilst spirited is actually through 
actually using the language and reporting concrete difficulties 
is directly driving the completion of some features.

Walter - sorry about that.  I need to get someone to help on that 
front as I have so little time.  Should work now.


Laeeth