@nogc and Phobos

[rempas]

On Saturday, 11 March 2023 at 16:21:40 UTC, bomat wrote:
> first: I didn't want to sound aggressive or like I was trying 
> to bash D, sorry if it came across like that.

Oh don't worry! People have openly criticized (and still doing) 
the language before. It's nothing to worry, criticism help us 
becoming better. But I didn't got these vibes from your post to 
begin with ;)

> 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.

Well, when I first started using D, coding on it was very very 
easy and enjoyable. I didn't had to think a lot and things "just 
worked"™️. Then, things chanced... Haven't made anything at this 
point except for some small programs. Now, I'm making my first 
"big" project and it's a compiler for my new language. So 
ironically enough, that will be my first and final project in D.

> 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).

My dear, if anyone would tell me that they are a fanboy of this 
mess called C++, I wouldn't believe them...

> But after hearing praise for D for being a cleaner and better 
> version of C/C++, I am a bit disappointed so far, tbh.

Well, of course we are a little bit disappointed when things are 
not tuned EXACTLY how we want them. There are things that D 
OBJECTIVELY does just wrong and they could have been much better. 
However, it's still much much much much better than C and even 
C++. And that's not a lie and I'm not a "fanboy". I tried to use 
them both for my project and D is straight up day and night with 
these two. If D has 3-4 annoying things, C and C++ have 10! And 
again, this is with `betterC` in mind. I don't even use the whole 
power of D. But again, nothing is perfect unless you build it, 
hence why I making my own that will include a lot of great 
features from D as it also objectively handles some things with a 
good way.

> 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`),

Does it have "implicit" type conversion? I didn't even knew, lol! 
The `foreach` will cover your needs like you said but ironically 
enough, I like and use the original `for` loop.

> the `switch` `case` fallthrough,

I have nothing to say for that, I have said it before and lots of 
others have as well.

> and the cancerous `const` (as far as I can tell, `immutable` is 
> an even worse flavor of it).

Yeah, another thing I'll change in my language. The way 
immutability is treated is so so bad for so many reasons.

> 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. :)

Well, the competition is pretty weak, yeah. Tho based on my 
experience, it doesn't worth to waste your time on anything else 
at this point. We can speak about trying a different language 
after mine is out ;)