Maybe D is right about GC after all !

[Dibyendu Majumdar]

On Saturday, 23 December 2017 at 09:10:25 UTC, Walter Bright 
wrote:
> On 12/22/2017 7:23 AM, Russel Winder wrote:
>> I think we are now in a world where Rust is the zero cost 
>> abstraction
>> language to replace C and C++, except for those who are 
>> determined to
>> stay with C++ and evolve it.
>
> Maybe it is. But that is not because D isn't up to the task. 
> I've converted a large program from C to D (Digital Mars C++'s 
> front end) with -betterC and it really is a zero cost 
> abstraction. The memory safety benefits are there (DIP 1000), 
> RAII is there, nested functions, array bounds checking, 
> template metaprogramming, CTFE, etc.
>
> D as betterC really is a game changer, for anyone who cares to 
> give it a try.

I think D's great strength compared to Rust is that it is much 
easier to code in D. How easy is it write a simple linked list in 
Rust - without using library features? Rust makes even simple 
tasks hard to write.

D as a language combines best features of C, C++ and Java which 
is great in my view. And the better C option makes it really 
viable for creating shared libraries that can be easily used in 
other projects.

Trying to replace C is really not the right goal for D I think. 
In my experience, C and C++ have already been replaced by Java, 
C# or Go in application development except where the code is 
legacy and is just being kept "alive". And nothing beats C for 
systems developers who want a high level assembler rather than 
abstractions and safety features.

In my view, D should be D - the main issue with D is not the 
language, but the tooling. It needs to "just work" on the major 
platforms and needs good IDE support.

Regards
Dibyendu