D enters Tiobe top 20

[Ola Fosheim Grøstad]

On Wednesday, 6 November 2019 at 12:14:33 UTC, drug wrote:
> Yes, I wasn't clear on that. Of course I meant it is hard in 
> safe Rust.
> Just because in other case there is no reason to use Rust at 
> all I believe

Well, I think Rust-developers have been overselling that aspect 
of Rust, but you could make the exact same argument for D.

If you benchmark against standard C++ practices then Rust 
borrowing only replaces some common cases of RAII in C++. If you 
cannot do it in a RAII-fashion in C++ then you cannot do it in 
Rust safe mode either.

You can make the exact same argument for D, though. And C++!

So, all 3 languages have a safe/unsafe dichotomy that can only be 
resolved fully with ADTs. In C++ it is checked in code reviews 
and by tooling, while Rust and D codifies that informal practice 
in the language to some extent.

In order to convince others that D is a better C++ alternative 
than Rust you'd have to argue encapsulation, meta-programming,  
composability of ADTs and available frameworks that provide ADTs.

Basically do a comparison that shows that you can more easily in 
unsafe-mode build ADTs that competes with commonly used 
best-practice domain-specific C++ ADTs. And that using them in 
safe-mode is more convenient than in the competing languages 
(with comparable memory/speed performance).