On Monday, 5 December 2016 at 20:25:00 UTC, Ilya Yaroshenko wrote:
Hi e-y-e,
The main problem with D for production is its runtime. GC,
DRuntime, Phobos is big constraint for real world software
production.
The almost only thing I do is real world software production
(basically math and o
On Thursday, 8 December 2016 at 09:57:21 UTC, Guillaume Piolat
wrote:
On Wednesday, 7 December 2016 at 12:12:56 UTC, Ilya Yaroshenko
wrote:
R, Matlab, Python, Mathematica, Gauss, and Julia use C libs.
--Ilya
As a C lib, you have the possibility of not initializing the
runtime, which leaves
On Thursday, 8 December 2016 at 11:09:12 UTC, ketmar wrote:
what can be done, tho, is article (or series of articles)
describing what exactly druntime is, how it is compared to libc
and libc++, why it doesn't hurt at all, how to do "bare metal"
with custom runtime, why GC is handy (and how to l
On Thursday, 8 December 2016 at 12:10:55 UTC, Andrey wrote:
On Thursday, 8 December 2016 at 11:09:12 UTC, ketmar wrote:
what can be done, tho, is article (or series of articles)
describing what exactly druntime is, how it is compared to
libc and libc++, why it doesn't hurt at all, how to do
On Thursday, 8 December 2016 at 11:09:12 UTC, ketmar wrote:
what can be done, tho, is article (or series of articles)
describing what exactly druntime is, how it is compared to libc
and libc++, why it doesn't hurt at all, how to do "bare metal"
with custom runtime, why GC is handy (and how t
On Thursday, 8 December 2016 at 11:09:12 UTC, ketmar wrote:
[...]
what can be done, tho, is article (or series of articles)
describing what exactly druntime is, how it is compared to libc
and libc++, why it doesn't hurt at all, how to do "bare metal"
with custom runtime, why GC is handy (and
On Thursday, 8 December 2016 at 11:32:56 UTC, Paolo Invernizzi
wrote:
On Thursday, 8 December 2016 at 11:09:12 UTC, ketmar wrote:
what can be done, tho, is article (or series of articles)
describing what exactly druntime is, how it is compared to
libc and libc++, why it doesn't hurt at all, ho
On Thursday, 8 December 2016 at 11:09:12 UTC, ketmar wrote:
what can be done, tho, is article (or series of articles)
describing what exactly druntime is, how it is compared to libc
and libc++, why it doesn't hurt at all, how to do "bare metal"
with custom runtime, why GC is handy (and how to
On Thursday, 8 December 2016 at 10:49:40 UTC, Chris wrote:
The "hard way" (no runtime/Phobos/GC) should not be the default
and I hope that nobody is seriously suggesting this. It should
be available in case anyone needs it. I dare doubt, however,
that C/C++ programmers will take to D like ducks
On Wednesday, 7 December 2016 at 16:43:54 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
On Wednesday, 7 December 2016 at 16:15:32 UTC, Chris wrote:
I don't understand this discussion at all. Why not have both?
I don't need bare metal stuff at the moment but I might one
day, and I perfectly understand that people may n
On Wednesday, 7 December 2016 at 12:12:56 UTC, Ilya Yaroshenko
wrote:
R, Matlab, Python, Mathematica, Gauss, and Julia use C libs.
--Ilya
As a C lib, you have the possibility of not initializing the
runtime, which leaves usable a part of phobos+druntime and it's
only a matter of avoiding TL
On Wednesday, 7 December 2016 at 21:52:22 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
On Wednesday, December 07, 2016 15:17:21 Picaud Vincent via
Digitalmars-d- learn wrote:
That being said, if someone wants to make their life harder by
insisting on using D without even druntime, then that's their
choice. I t
On Thursday, 8 December 2016 at 02:10:35 UTC, Jon Degenhardt
wrote:
A cycle I think is common is for a researcher (industry or
academic) to write functionality in native R code, then when
trying to scale it, finds native R code is too slow, and
switches to C/C++ to create a library used in R. C
On Wednesday, 7 December 2016 at 16:33:03 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
On Wednesday, 7 December 2016 at 12:12:56 UTC, Ilya Yaroshenko
wrote:
R, Matlab, Python, Mathematica, Gauss, and Julia use C libs.
--Ilya
You can call into those same C libs using D. Only if you want a
pure D solution do you ne
On Wednesday, December 07, 2016 15:17:21 Picaud Vincent via Digitalmars-d-
learn wrote:
> However I think that to popularize/attract people to use D, it is
> very important, to have a mechanism/feature that allows you to be
> close to the "zero overhead" situation.
You can do that without throwing
On Wednesday, 7 December 2016 at 16:15:32 UTC, Chris wrote:
I don't understand this discussion at all. Why not have both? I
don't need bare metal stuff at the moment but I might one day,
and I perfectly understand that people may need it. At the same
time, there are people who are happy with ru
On Wednesday, 7 December 2016 at 16:15:32 UTC, Chris wrote:
I don't understand this discussion at all. Why not have both? I
don't need bare metal stuff at the moment but I might one day,
and I perfectly understand that people may need it. At the same
time, there are people who are happy with
On Wednesday, 7 December 2016 at 12:12:56 UTC, Ilya Yaroshenko
wrote:
R, Matlab, Python, Mathematica, Gauss, and Julia use C libs.
--Ilya
You can call into those same C libs using D. Only if you want a
pure D solution do you need to be able to rewrite those libraries
and get the same perfor
On Wednesday, 7 December 2016 at 15:17:21 UTC, Picaud Vincent
wrote:
On Wednesday, 7 December 2016 at 11:48:32 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
[...]
I understand and I do agree with these points, honestly. These
points are also the reason why I will maybe try to use D for my
own codes (D is really mu
On Wednesday, 7 December 2016 at 11:48:32 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
I write D code all the time for my research. I want to write
correct code quickly. My time is too valuable to spend weeks
writing code to cut the running time by a few minutes. That
might be fun for some people, but it doesn't pay
On Monday, 5 December 2016 at 17:18:25 UTC, e-y-e wrote:
Currently I have been learning D for about a year and a half.
This may seem like a short time, but this is the longest I have
stuck with any language. I have only been learning for 4 years
and I am currently in university studying first y
On Wednesday, 7 December 2016 at 13:14:52 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
On Monday, 5 December 2016 at 20:25:00 UTC, Ilya Yaroshenko
wrote:
Good D code should be nothrow, @nogc, and betterC. BetterC
means that it must not require DRuntime to link and to start.
Without runtime you won't have asserts (C ha
On Monday, 5 December 2016 at 20:25:00 UTC, Ilya Yaroshenko wrote:
Good D code should be nothrow, @nogc, and betterC. BetterC
means that it must not require DRuntime to link and to start.
Without runtime you won't have asserts (C has them), bounds
checking, array casts, string switch. Doesn't
On Wednesday, 7 December 2016 at 12:36:49 UTC, Dejan Lekic wrote:
On Monday, 5 December 2016 at 20:25:00 UTC, Ilya Yaroshenko
wrote:
Good D code should be nothrow, @nogc, and betterC. BetterC
means that it must not require DRuntime to link and to start.
I started Mir as scientific/numeric proje
On Monday, 5 December 2016 at 20:25:00 UTC, Ilya Yaroshenko wrote:
Good D code should be nothrow, @nogc, and betterC. BetterC
means that it must not require DRuntime to link and to start. I
started Mir as scientific/numeric project, but it is going to
be a replacement for Phobos to use D instea
On Wednesday, 7 December 2016 at 09:56:20 UTC, ketmar wrote:
On Wednesday, 7 December 2016 at 09:45:39 UTC, Andrey wrote:
I think, a good way to step up for Dlang is to be C++ like Ada
variant, with possibility to work without GC.
you do know that you *can* use D without GC even now, do you?
On Wednesday, 7 December 2016 at 11:48:32 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
On Wednesday, 7 December 2016 at 06:17:17 UTC, Picaud Vincent
wrote:
Considering scientific/numerical applications, I do agree with
Ilya: it is mandatory to have zero overhead and a
straightforward/direct interoperability with C. I
On Wednesday, 7 December 2016 at 06:17:17 UTC, Picaud Vincent
wrote:
Considering scientific/numerical applications, I do agree with
Ilya: it is mandatory to have zero overhead and a
straightforward/direct interoperability with C. I am impressed
by the Mir lib results and I think "BetterC" is ve
On Wednesday, 7 December 2016 at 09:45:39 UTC, Andrey wrote:
I think, a good way to step up for Dlang is to be C++ like Ada
variant, with possibility to work without GC.
you do know that you *can* use D without GC even now, do you?
On Wednesday, 7 December 2016 at 07:27:53 UTC, ketmar wrote:
On Wednesday, 7 December 2016 at 02:38:50 UTC, bpr wrote:
It's a counterfactual at this point, but I would guess that if
D had left out the GC in 2010 when D2 came out it would have
been ahead of C++ in many ways and perhaps would hav
On Wednesday, 7 December 2016 at 02:38:50 UTC, bpr wrote:
It's a counterfactual at this point, but I would guess that if
D had left out the GC in 2010 when D2 came out it would have
been ahead of C++ in many ways and perhaps would have been able
to peel off more C++ programmers
c++ programmer
On Tuesday, 6 December 2016 at 17:00:35 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
So, while there are certainly folks who would prefer using D as
a better C without druntime or Phobos, I think that you're
seriously overestimating how many folks would be interested in
that. Certainly, all of the C++ programm
On Wednesday, December 07, 2016 02:38:50 bpr via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
> On Tuesday, 6 December 2016 at 22:47:34 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
> > We get plenty of folks who aren't big C/C++ programmers who are
> > interested in D. Yes, the majority seem to have a C++
> > background, but we also get f
On Wednesday, 7 December 2016 at 02:24:56 UTC, bpr wrote:
If I really *want* to use a GC, say I'm writing a server and I
believe that a well tuned GC will allow my server to stay alive
much longer with less fragmentation, I'll probably skip D and
pick Go or maybe (hmmm...) even Java because the
On Tuesday, 6 December 2016 at 22:47:34 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
On Tuesday, December 06, 2016 22:13:54 bpr via
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
On Tuesday, 6 December 2016 at 17:00:35 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
Sure, there are folks who would prefer not to have to deal with
the GC but throw o
On Tuesday, 6 December 2016 at 22:23:25 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
On Tuesday, 6 December 2016 at 22:13:54 UTC, bpr wrote:
Those programmers who are comfortable working in a GC-ed
language will likely eschew D because D's GC is really not
that great.
So someone working with Ruby is not going to wa
My 2 cents: for most applications, hotspots tend to be in a tiny percentage
of the code (ie 90/10 rule where 10% of code accounts for 90% execution
time, although my experience in large projects is even more unbalanced) ;
throwing away druntime or GC for the whole codebase based on performance
conc
On Tuesday, 6 December 2016 at 22:13:54 UTC, bpr wrote:
On Tuesday, 6 December 2016 at 17:00:35 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
I would guess that the vast majority of interest shown in Rust
is from people who essentially want a better C or C++, with no
runtime/GC. So, I think Ilya's point is very plau
On Tuesday, December 06, 2016 22:13:54 bpr via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
> On Tuesday, 6 December 2016 at 17:00:35 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
>
> wrote:
> > So, while there are certainly folks who would prefer using D as
> > a better C without druntime or Phobos, I think that you're
> > seriously overe
On Tuesday, 6 December 2016 at 22:13:54 UTC, bpr wrote:
Those programmers who are comfortable working in a GC-ed
language will likely eschew D because D's GC is really not that
great.
So someone working with Ruby is not going to want to work with D
because of GC performance? I wonder what per
On Tuesday, 6 December 2016 at 17:00:35 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
So, while there are certainly folks who would prefer using D as
a better C without druntime or Phobos, I think that you're
seriously overestimating how many folks would be interested in
that. Certainly, all of the C++ programm
On Tuesday, 6 December 2016 at 20:01:38 UTC, Ilya Yaroshenko
wrote:
On Tuesday, 6 December 2016 at 17:00:35 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
So, while there are certainly folks who would prefer using D
as a better C without druntime or Phobos, I think that you're
seriously overestimating how many f
On Tuesday, 6 December 2016 at 17:00:35 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
So, while there are certainly folks who would prefer using D as
a better C without druntime or Phobos, I think that you're
seriously overestimating how many folks would be interested in
that. Certainly, all of the C++ programm
On Tuesday, December 06, 2016 13:36:20 Ilya Yaroshenko via Digitalmars-d-
learn wrote:
> On Tuesday, 6 December 2016 at 13:02:16 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
>
> wrote:
> > On 12/6/16 3:28 AM, Ilya Yaroshenko wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, 6 December 2016 at 08:14:17 UTC, Andrea Fontana
> >>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
On Tuesday, 6 December 2016 at 13:02:16 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 12/6/16 3:28 AM, Ilya Yaroshenko wrote:
On Tuesday, 6 December 2016 at 08:14:17 UTC, Andrea Fontana
wrote:
On Monday, 5 December 2016 at 20:25:00 UTC, Ilya Yaroshenko
Phobos/Druntime are pretty good for a lot of projects
On 12/5/16 3:49 PM, e-y-e wrote:
If you don't mind me saying, I think Mir could be one of the best things
for the future of D (along with LDC) and I'd be glad to help it on its way.
Yes, Mir is awesome! I keep on thinking of ways to make it better
supported by the language and infra. -- Andrei
On 12/6/16 3:28 AM, Ilya Yaroshenko wrote:
On Tuesday, 6 December 2016 at 08:14:17 UTC, Andrea Fontana wrote:
On Monday, 5 December 2016 at 20:25:00 UTC, Ilya Yaroshenko
Phobos/Druntime are pretty good for a lot of projects.
In theory
And what seem to be the issues in practice with code that
On Monday, 5 December 2016 at 20:49:50 UTC, e-y-e wrote:
On Monday, 5 December 2016 at 20:25:00 UTC, Ilya Yaroshenko
wrote:
[...]
You know from the 15th December I will have a month of free
time, and I would love to get myself up to speed with Mir to
contribute to it. If you don't mind me sa
On Tuesday, 6 December 2016 at 08:14:17 UTC, Andrea Fontana wrote:
On Monday, 5 December 2016 at 20:25:00 UTC, Ilya Yaroshenko
Phobos/Druntime are pretty good for a lot of projects.
In theory
On Monday, 5 December 2016 at 20:25:00 UTC, Ilya Yaroshenko wrote:
Good D code should be nothrow, @nogc, and betterC. BetterC
means that it must not require DRuntime to link and to start. I
started Mir as scientific/numeric project, but it is going to
be a replacement for Phobos to use D instea
On Monday, 5 December 2016 at 20:49:50 UTC, e-y-e wrote:
On Monday, 5 December 2016 at 20:25:00 UTC, Ilya Yaroshenko
wrote:
[...]
You know from the 15th December I will have a month of free
time, and I would love to get myself up to speed with Mir to
contribute to it. If you don't mind me sa
On Monday, 5 December 2016 at 17:18:25 UTC, e-y-e wrote:
Currently I have been learning D for about a year and a half.
This may seem like a short time, but this is the longest I have
stuck with any language. I have only been learning for 4 years
and I am currently in university studying first y
On Monday, 5 December 2016 at 20:25:00 UTC, Ilya Yaroshenko wrote:
Hi e-y-e,
The main problem with D for production is its runtime. GC,
DRuntime, Phobos is big constraint for real world software
production.
Good D code should be nothrow, @nogc, and betterC. BetterC
means that it must not re
Hi e-y-e,
The main problem with D for production is its runtime. GC,
DRuntime, Phobos is big constraint for real world software
production.
Good D code should be nothrow, @nogc, and betterC. BetterC means
that it must not require DRuntime to link and to start. I started
Mir as scientific/nu
On Monday, 5 December 2016 at 17:18:25 UTC, e-y-e wrote:
Currently I have been learning D for about a year and a half.
This may seem like a short time, but this is the longest I have
stuck with any language. I have only been learning for 4 years
and I am currently in university studying first y
Currently I have been learning D for about a year and a half.
This may seem like a short time, but this is the longest I have
stuck with any language. I have only been learning for 4 years
and I am currently in university studying first year of computer
systems engineering.
My main problem is
56 matches
Mail list logo
