My choice to pick Go over D ( and Rust ), mostly non-technical

[bpr]

On Sunday, 4 February 2018 at 11:14:43 UTC, JN wrote:
> On Friday, 2 February 2018 at 15:06:35 UTC, Benny wrote:
>> You want to produce PDFs? fpdf 2015-Apr-06, a very limited PDF 
>> generation tool last updated 3 years go.
>>
>
> While not as trivial as just using a dub package, D easy 
> interop with C means you can use C libraries for PDF like 
> libharu or w/e.
>
>> * Are you targeting C developers?
>>
>> Sure BetterC is a way towards that but again, what do you 
>> offer more then Rust?

Overloading, templates, compile time features are arguably "more 
than Rust".

>> I see C developers more going for Rust then D on this point.

Maybe, Rust is a decent language, and it appears to be getting 
better faster than D is. I recall the announcement of an 
experimental precise GC for D in 2013 or so, and Andrei at the 
time made it clear that a precise GC would be worth it even at 
some cost in performance. I don't think D will ever get a precise 
GC. Maybe the Rust and "Modern C++" guys are right and it's not 
worth it in a systems programming language?

> Personally I agree that BetterC isn't a good alternative for C 
> programmers. Sure, you get some benefits of D, but you will 
> lose many benefits of C

Which benefits of C are lost?

> and you'll have to constantly fight "wait, can I use this in 
> BetterC or not" kind of thing.

Fair point, but that's a quality of implementation thing. I can 
imagine that in 6 months betterC is better supported on all 
platforms, and better documented.