We are forking D

[Antonio]

On Tuesday, 2 January 2024 at 20:13:59 UTC, Profunctor wrote:
> On Tuesday, 2 January 2024 at 17:55:56 UTC, GrimMaple wrote:
>> * Embracing the GC and improving upon it, disregarding betterC 
>> and nogc in the process
>
> This alone is worth it. I pray for your success in these 
> endeavors.

I think the same.

This eternal discussion only serves to make many .Net/Java/... 
programmers feel insecure.

If D opted for GC, he should embrace that path from the 
beginning. If "many" C or C++ programmers were interested in D 
but did not want to use GC, they are the ones who should have 
created their own Fork and not the other way around.

D had (and has) great qualities to be an efficient "high level" 
language and that is how I perceived it 20 years ago (comparing 
it with c#)... I have tried to use it 2 or 3 times professionally 
and it ended up disappointing me.

Each time I return to D I have to "remember" or "learn" again and 
there is not a toolchain that helps me to "remember" naturally as 
other languages do (i.e. intellisense system comparable to 
Java/C#/Scala/...    Templates/mixins/compile-time code supposes 
a real wall hard to cross)

And, of course, I always find something annoying (i.e.: 
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3543 ) that consumes my 
time until I find it is a bug or an unexpected behavior (like the 
limitations with UFCS)

My conclusion was that D is managed, mainly, by C/C++ developers 
that really doesn't need to move from C++ to D.

Too much C/C++/Rust and not enough Scala/Java/C#/Typescript/...

But it's my opinion
Wellcome to OpenD