Article: Dispelling Common D Myths

[Era Scarecrow]

On Sunday, 14 October 2012 at 03:24:16 UTC, torhu wrote:
> In my view, D2/Phobos2 is still playing catch-up to D1/Tango.  
> The D1 compiler is less buggy, Tango is still better than 
> Phobos2, library could well be better.
>
> I wouldn't recommend anyone to start a new project in D1.  But 
> I also feel that some people are jumping the gun when they talk 
> about D2's maturity.

  I'll agree; I haven't used much of Tango myself but I can 
remember where some of the problems were. I had trouble trying to 
get a good enough foot-hold on the library while Phobos is 
generally simpler.

  I wish D2 was more mature, several things seem to crop up. 
Duplicate functions with only const/mutable differences in some 
cases, the $ not fully implemented, phobos still evolving; Things 
like this can be worked around to a degree. I can't help but wish 
it was already perfect.


  However; D2 IS mature enough for a good number of tasks, and 
even the hickups I'm finding they are far easier (and more 
pleasant) to work around (comparing to C++, syntax and how ugly 
it is alone, not to mention how confusing the STL is). Also D2 
where there's common/potential for mistakes and ambiguities it 
errs and tells you (add parentheses, or no assignment in an if 
statement, or a statement does nothing) rather than adding extra 
rules to handle dozens of potential cases that gets more 
confusing with each iteration.

  Plus getting a hang of Templates is a breeze once I got a good 
foothold on it all. I'm no expert with templates, but problems 
are easy to find quickly and resolve with template bugs.