Dlang

>>61452570
D is like a drug, once you get used to it you can't live without it. But alas, It's not backed by rich corporations.

Coming from C++, D seems too good to be true. I think that once D's toolkit improves, D could become mainstream.

>>61452570
Poor Linux and BSD support. They were focused on Windows, but couldn't compete with the VB, C++ and Delphi tooling. Then .NET came out so no one bothered with D.

>>61452743
>Poor Linux support
What do you mean?

Poor BSD support - for OpenBSD and NetBSD - Yes. FreeBSD has good support and as for Linux, D has great support.

Rust has memory safety, no GC (can be used as system lang) and fast compiler.
Go isn't OO, good concurrency, good GC and fast compiler as well.
D is just C++ with easier syntax, shitty (though optional) GC and slow compiler.

>>61452654
>D first released 2000
>Go and Rust ca 2010
>both Go/Rust toolkit function better than D's
There is nothing to be done. D lost.

>>61452570
Go got Google (it'd be largely forgotten otherwise), Rust got Mozilla

because I can use Java when I want GC and Rust when I don't

>>61452614
s/D/LISP/

>>61454878
>D lost
>Yet it's still growing
>It has no backing
>People are genuinely getting pissed that backed languages like Rust are infecting everything

Rust sacrifices everything for the lifetime analyzer, and actual production code is almost write-only. Actual production D code is more readable than fucking Python. Try reading the Phobos library versus C++'s standard lib.

D wins, if it takes 10 or 20 years. For most applications, the GC doesn't matter, and for those where it does there are options. It's incredibly well-positioned; moneyed backing is distorting how horribly positioned Rust is.

File: l04he.jpg (27KB, 399x385px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 399x385px

>>61455229
take your meds, Walter

>>61455229
D will never be popular. That's extremely obvious to anyone that isn't a Walter Bright dick rider.

>>61454845
>easier syntax
Cleaner* syntax

And there's NOTHING good about Go's GC

>>61454845
>Rust
>Fast compiler

>Go
>Good GC

>D
>Slow compiler

0/3

>>61452570
D went full retard when it added a GC. D shills will tell you that it's optional - they forget to say that 90% of standard library calls will leak memory if you turn it off.
If D was simply C++ with more consistent syntax, cleaner templates, modules, UFCS and easy C/C++ linkage it would have been perfect.

>>61455891
It's low-latency. That's literally the only good thing.

>>61455964
>It's low-latency.
Nice buzzword. D's GC latency is fully customizable, it's nothing new. All it does is cater snake-oil to uneducated retards (the target audience of Go). D's GC is bad but Go's GC is not better either.

For an example of good GC, look up Nim

>>61456007
We're in agreement.

>>61455900
I mixed Rust and D on that one. As for Go I talked relatively to D.

CHAPEL YOU FOOL

>>61452570
>>61454878

They had
- two language versions
- two competing standard libraries
- a compiler frontend that was owned by Symantec because not-so-Bright worked on it on his work time
- just recently the idea that a garbage collector in the standard libraries might be a bad thing for a system programming language

In modern development, with software based on other peoples libraries trust is the most important thing for people to have in a development environment.
And dlang really worked hard to lose that trust.
I might give it another chance for personal projects because the language itself is comfy once GCC 8 is in reach. But I'm fairly surprised there even are non-trivial D projects at this point, like some IDEs, GUI-libraries and this https://github.com/gecko0307/atrium game.

also
>>61455341

>>61456007
>For an example of good GC, look up Nim

LMAO. Is this satire?

>>61456109
>They had
I almost forgot how they introduced better metaprogramming NOW, but then again, so does C++.

>>61456164
this, to be sincere

>>61456109
>two competing standard libraries
No, not competing. The previous one is depracated.

>>61456164
>satire
No, what makes you say so?

>>61456170
What are you talking about?

>>61456202
>No, not competing. The previous one is depracated.
Pretty sure at some point of D1 Phobos and Tango were battling.

>>61456214
The new version of compile time function evaluation. I'm not even sure if it can do what Jai can do, now.

>>61456250
It's a lot faster, I don't think it was ever meant to do as much as the Jai one does. I remember Stephan mentioning why somewhere, let me see if I can find it.

I made my own programming language and it's better than D

>>61456527
Show it to us, please!

>>61456563
No

>>61456527
>and it's better than D
We'll be the judge of that.

>>61452570
All of them are shit though.

>>61452570
because d official website looks like shit?

>>61452570
D is a bloated mess and smells to much like Java.

I'd rather have a language that does "a better C" than a language that does "a better C++".

>>61457870
This. These new languages need to stop taking inspiration from these disgusting OO monstrosities. Nobody is falling for the "OO is useful" bullshit anymore. Look at C and the ML family of languages for inspiration.

>>61457870
>I'd rather have a language that does "a better C"
Go then?

File: 1500479716637.jpg (37KB, 379x503px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 379x503px

>>61457933
> Go
> better than anything

>>61457870
>>61457908
Got you covered
https://dlang.org/dmd-linux.html

dmd -betterC

>>61457933
>GC
>no macros
>better C
Rob Pike should just kill himself at this point.

>>61457972
>macros
>good

>>61457933
Go is definitely the direction I would go into. But it's not systems programming language and no replacement for C.

>>61457985
>no metaprogramming facilities at all
>good

>>61457972 is right

>>61454845

> D
> Slow compiler