C and memory safety comments by me

[Tobias Mueller via Digitalmars-d]

On Friday, 19 May 2017 at 08:58:33 UTC, Wulfklaue wrote:
> On Thursday, 18 May 2017 at 19:33:25 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>> Thanks for the link. I don't understand what they mean in 
>> saying I don't get Rust's vision.
>
> A lot of Rust users seem to think they own the memory safe 
> market. Language with GC = Bad. What they forget is that a good 
> GC can be unnoticeable in code execution.
>
> Take these silly benchmarks:
>
> https://github.com/kostya/benchmarks
>
> Despite Rust not being a GC language, you expect the Rust 
> results to have a lower memory usage then D. Or D to have a 
> larger execution time for the lower memory ( early GC cleanup 
> cycles = lower memory usage but performance hits ).
>
> The D Ldc vs Rust are the most relevant as its the same 
> backend. But even with DMD or GCC those cpu/mem results can be 
> better then Rust. Even Crystal pushes better results on the 
> same backend.
>
> But i was under the assumption that anything that is not Rust 
> is simply bad? /s

I wonder, did you actually read the comments in linked thread in 
/r/rust? I don't see any that would support that.
The comments about D are actually fairly positive in that thread.

And @Walter, I believe they wrote that you dont *buy into* the 
vision of Rust, not that you don't get the vision of Rust. The 
vision of Rust and D are quite different, so this isn't 
unexpected.

They do however say that the actual knowledge about Rust in the D 
community seems to be rather small, compared to the amount of 
criticism against it. And TBQH I have to agree. To criticize, you 
should at least have a basic understanding of it.

I don't really understand why there is so much bashing of other 
languages on this forum (not just Rust, but also Java, C, C++, 
etc). For me personally, this leaves a bad taste and makes the D 
community look unfriendly.
There's room for both, Rust and D. Some just don't want a GC, for 
whatever valid or invalid reason. And some like it. Some like the 
terseness of D and others the explicitness of Rust. Some prefer 
the declarative nature of Rust, others the introspection of D.
As I see it, Rust and D might target similar problems, but as a 
language they are quite different.

If another language get's a good feature, the comments here are 
almost always negative. Why? Programming languages are tools, not 
religions (at least for most programmers). If the tools are 
getting better it's better for everyone. If other languages are 
including features of D, be happy about it, not angry.
And similarly, D should try to learn from other languages and 
maybe even include some of their features it it fits.