@nogc and Phobos

[bomat]

On Saturday, 11 March 2023 at 13:18:13 UTC, rempas wrote:
> Even if the first was the case (which again, only things that 
> need the GC will not be able to be used), D is far from been 
> "useless". You can use `betterC` and use C's libraries. 
> Personally, that's what I'm doing anyway. Even if there was no 
> garbage collector and a runtime, I still don't like Phobos and 
> the built-in structures of D. It is still far far better than 
> pretty much any other (compiled) language out there in case of 
> usability so it's not useless at all even if you cannot use the 
> standard library!

Hi rempas,
just wanted to answer to this one separately for two reasons,
first: I didn't want to sound aggressive or like I was trying to 
bash D, sorry if it came across like that.
Second: I find it super interesting what you say about you not 
actually liking Phobos and the built-in structures of D.
Although I have not seen very much yet, I think I have to agree 
to that.

Although I come from a C++ background, I'm not exactly a fanboy 
of that language (you can probably tell, otherwise I wouldn't be 
here).
But after hearing praise for D for being a cleaner and better 
version of C/C++, I am a bit disappointed so far, tbh. I don't 
want to go into too much detail here to not derail the thread 
entirely, but I think it repeats too many old sins, like implicit 
type conversions, the `for` loop syntax (although I guess one 
wouldn't need it that often because of `foreach`), the `switch` 
`case` fallthrough, and the cancerous `const` (as far as I can 
tell, `immutable` is an even worse flavor of it).

Despite all of that, I can't argue with the fact that it may 
still be the best compiled language currently around. Sadly 
enough, though, imo that isn't that much of a compliment. :)