My choice to pick Go over D ( and Rust ), mostly non-technical

[Rubn]

On Saturday, 3 February 2018 at 08:18:57 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 08:16:25PM -0800, Walter Bright via 
> Digitalmars-d wrote:
>> On 2/2/2018 7:06 AM, Benny wrote:
>> > Other languages have slogans, they have selling points.
>> > 
>> > When i hear Go, you hear uniformal, fast, simple syntax 
>> > language.
>> > When i hear Rust, you hear safe, manual memory management.
>> > When i hear D, you hear ... ... ... ...
>> 
>>                           Fast code, fast
>
> Frankly, that slogan makes me cringe. Makes D sound like a fast 
> food chain -- cheap code, fast. Would you like fa^Wfries with 
> that?

Yup I agree, it's a horrible slogan. Speed isn't even a priority 
in D, if it was so many things would be different.

> - Make dmd's optimizer better, esp. with loop unrolling on par 
> with
>   ldc/gdc, or better, so that we don't keep having to defend 
> poor dmd
>   benchmarks with "use ldc/gdc instead";

I don't think time should be wasted on making DMD's optimizer 
better. It's not an easy job and it'll just pull resources for 
something that has no purpose. The compile times with DMD -O can 
vary dramatically, it's best just to not use it at all. The 
reason I hear as to why DMD even exists instead of just having 1 
compiler like Rust or any other language that isn't 20+ years 
old. Is cause DMD's unoptimized compilation is fast and creates 
reasonably fast enough code for debugging.