Fantastic exchange from DConf
Ola Fosheim Grøstad via Digitalmars-d
digitalmars-d at puremagic.com
Fri May 12 12:20:21 PDT 2017
On Friday, 12 May 2017 at 04:08:52 UTC, Laeeth Isharc wrote:
> build tool. We have extern(C++) which is great, and no other
> language has it.
Objective-C++/Swift.
> Maybe it's wrong to think about there being one true inheritor
> of the mantle of C and C++. Maybe no new language will gain
> the market share that C has, and if so that's probably a good
> thing. Mozilla probably never had any moments when they woke
> up and thought hmm maybe we should have used Go instead, and I
> doubt people writing network services think maybe Rust would
> have been better.
Yes, I think this is right, although C++ is taking over more and
more of C's space. But there are still niches where C++ have a
hard time going and C still dominates.
The problem is of course, that less and less software projects
benefit from what C offers...
> But if you're a principal - ie in some way an owner of a
> business - you haven't got the luxury of fooling yourself, not
> if you want to survive and flourish. The buck stops here, so
> it's a risk to use D, but it's also a risk not to use D - you
> can't pretend the conventional wisdom is without risk when it
> may not suit the problem that's before you. And it's your
> problem today and it's still your problem tomorrow, and that
> leads to a different orientation towards the future than being
> a cog in a vast machine where the top guy is measured by
> whether he beats earnings next quarter.
I don't really think all that many principals make such decisions
without pressure from the engineers in the organization, unless
it is for going with some big league name...
In general many leaders have been burned by using tooling from
companies that has folded or not being able to fix issues. Which
is a very good reason for going with the safe and well known.
Most projects have enough uncertainty factors already so adding
an extra uncertainty factor in the tooling is usually not the
right choice.
> The web guys do have a lot of engineers but they have an
> inordinate influence on the culture. Lots more code gets
Right, the web guys adopt bleeding edge tech like crazy, because
the risk is low. The projects are small and they can start over
with a new tech on the next project in a few months. They don't
have to plan for sticking with the same tooling for years and
years.
> And I am sure Walter is right about the importance of memory
> safety. But outside of certain areas D isn't in a battle with
> Rust; memory safety is one more appealing modern feature of D.
> To say it's important to get it right isn't to say it has to
> defeat Rust. Not that you implied this, but some people at
> dconf seemed to implicitly think that way.
Well, memory safety isn't a modern feature at all actually. Most
languages provide it, C is a notable exception...
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list