[OT] Re: C's Biggest Mistake on Hacker News
bpr
brogoff at gmail.com
Sat Jul 28 21:27:12 UTC 2018
On Saturday, 28 July 2018 at 20:34:37 UTC, Abdulhaq wrote:
> On Saturday, 28 July 2018 at 19:55:56 UTC, bpr wrote:
>> On Saturday, 28 July 2018 at 15:36:43 UTC, Abdulhaq wrote:
>>> I think that I no longer fall into the category of developer
>>> that D is after. D is targeting pedal-to-the-metal
>>> requirements, and I don't need that. TBH I think 99% of
>>> developers don't need it.
>>
>> I'm 99% sure you just made that number up ;-)
>>
>
> Sure, I plucked it out of thin air. But I do think of the
> software development world as an inverted pyramid in terms of
> performance demands and headcount. At the bottom of my inverted
> pyramid I have Linux and Windows. This code needs to be as
> performant as possible and bug free as possible. C/C++/D shine
> at this stuff. However, I number those particular developers in
> the thousands.
The developers at Mozilla working on the browser internals, for
example, are unaccounted for in your analysis. As are the
developers where I work.
> I think a great bulk of developers, though, sit at the
> application development layer. They are pumping out great
> swathes of Java etc. Users of Spring and dozens of other
> frameworks. C++ is usually the wrong choice for this type of
> work, but can be adopted in a mistaken bid for performance.
I don't know that the great bulk of developers work in Java.
> Any how many are churning out all that javascript and PHP code?
>
> Hence I think that the number of developers who really need top
> performance is much smaller than the number who don't.
I'd be willing to accept that, but I have no idea what the actual
numbers are.
> If I had to write CFD code, and I'd love to have a crack, then
> I'd really be wanting to use D for its expressiveness and
> performance. But because of the domain that I do work in, I
> feel that I am no longer in D's target demographic.
If I had to write CFD code, and I wanted to scratch an itch to
use a new language,
I'd probably pick Julia, because that community is made up of
scientific computing
experts. D might be high on my list, but not likely the first
choice. C++ would be in there too :-(.
>
> I remember the subject of write barriers coming up in order (I
> think?) to improve the GC. Around that time Walter said he
> would not change D in any way that would reduce performance by
> even 1%.
Here we kind of agree. If D is going to support a GC, I want a
state of the art precise GC like Go has. That may rule out some D
features, or incur some cost that
high performance programmers don't like, or even suggest two
kinds of pointer (a la Modula-3/Nim), which Walter also dislikes.
> Hence I feel that D is ruling itself out of the application
> developer market.
At this stage in its life, I don't think D should try to be all
things to all programmers, but rather focus on doing a few things
way better than the competition.
> That's totally cool with me, but it me a long time to realise
> that it was the case and that therefore it was less promising
> to me than it had seemed before.
I hear you. You're looking (roughly) for a better Java/Go/Scala,
and I'm looking for a better C/C++/Rust, at least for what I work
on now. I don't think D can be both right now, and that the
language which can satisfy both of us doesn't exist yet, though D
is close.
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list