Discussion Thread: DIP 1028--Make @safe the Default--Final Review

Arine arine123445128843 at gmail.com
Thu Apr 2 17:26:17 UTC 2020


On Wednesday, 1 April 2020 at 21:32:29 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 3/31/2020 2:12 PM, Arine wrote:
>> With the current implementation and proposal of @live, it is 
>> effectively the equivalent of comparing a pair of scissors to 
>> a lawn mower. To be comparable to something like Rust would 
>> require an entire language rewrite from the ground up. Even 
>> though there are already significant breaking changes, they 
>> aren't sufficient and I don't imagine breaking everything 
>> completely is on the table.
>
> I've encountered such opinions my entire career. Fortunately, I 
> never pay attention to them.

That's why Rust, a completely new language that doesn't follow 
similar syntax of another language and requires developers to 
completely rewrite their code is doing much much better than D? 
Gotcha.

https://github.com/dlang/dlang.org/commit/9bede81001c1b1486e749dbaf3ee81087476c9c6#diff-f40612a5a1a025f217fe29cb0df257ddR56

> The future of programming will be multicore, multithreaded. 
> Languages that
> make it easy to program them will supplant languages that don't.
> Transitive const is key to bringing D into this paradigm. The 
> surge in
> use of Haskell and Erlang is evidence of this coming trend (the 
> killer
> feature of those languages is they make it easy to do 
> multiprogramming).

This all sounds so familiar.

Here you have one of D's most avoided features that was the key 
to bringing D into the "future".

People that are gravitating towards Rust would not deem the 
implementation of @live suitable.

But ya'know, thank goodness you just ignored everyone else's 
opinions and continued in your spearheaded stubborn ways.

I'll ask again since you didn't reply last time. Have you ever 
written Rust? Have you ever used Rust? From your implementation 
of @live, I feel as though you haven't.


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list