The problem with D is that it is so non-uniform. People talk about the betterC mode, but not nearly all D code written can run in this mode. Now people will talk about this ownership mode, but very little code will really use it. To become an expert in D or C++, you really need to understand what feels like a dozen different languages... and that’s not what I’m looking for in a single language.
D’s concept of ownership (for now) doesn’t seem to have any plan to support partially moved structs, which are a major ergonomic feature.
D has organically grown just about every interesting feature ever conceived, but I would much rather use a purpose-built language, which is what Rust feels like.
I don’t want a C++ that’s better at being C++ than C++ is. I really enjoy how consistent and expressive Rust is. I also appreciate how intentional Go is about being Go.
A lot of people enjoy C++, and some people enjoy D. I enjoyed C++ back when Rust wasn’t an option... then something better came along. D and C++ try to be everything to everyone. I like D better than C++... but I have seen no compelling reason to trade Rust for D.
Variadic templates are much better expressed by either tuples or const generics. A fixed length array of a constant generic length is the Rustic solution to tensor-like problems, and it is being rigorously developed.
Arbitrary compile time computation should be separated from the body of the program. If you need to download files or read the file tree at compile time, that should happen in a build script. Rust provides build.rs for that. Precomputing values without I/O is conceptually just an advanced kind of compiler optimization, and that’s why Rust is basically seeking to make const fns only pure functions.
The fast compile times are a double edged sword, since those binaries are noticeably slower than Rust binaries, from what I’ve seen. I hope that Rust will one day have a much faster compiler for development builds.
I also think every sign is showing that Rust is starting to get some real traction, so I don’t think I’m alone in these opinions... but they are mostly just that: opinions. You’re welcome to your own.
D’s concept of ownership (for now) doesn’t seem to have any plan to support partially moved structs, which are a major ergonomic feature.
D has organically grown just about every interesting feature ever conceived, but I would much rather use a purpose-built language, which is what Rust feels like.
I don’t want a C++ that’s better at being C++ than C++ is. I really enjoy how consistent and expressive Rust is. I also appreciate how intentional Go is about being Go.
A lot of people enjoy C++, and some people enjoy D. I enjoyed C++ back when Rust wasn’t an option... then something better came along. D and C++ try to be everything to everyone. I like D better than C++... but I have seen no compelling reason to trade Rust for D.
Variadic templates are much better expressed by either tuples or const generics. A fixed length array of a constant generic length is the Rustic solution to tensor-like problems, and it is being rigorously developed.
Arbitrary compile time computation should be separated from the body of the program. If you need to download files or read the file tree at compile time, that should happen in a build script. Rust provides build.rs for that. Precomputing values without I/O is conceptually just an advanced kind of compiler optimization, and that’s why Rust is basically seeking to make const fns only pure functions.
The fast compile times are a double edged sword, since those binaries are noticeably slower than Rust binaries, from what I’ve seen. I hope that Rust will one day have a much faster compiler for development builds.
I also think every sign is showing that Rust is starting to get some real traction, so I don’t think I’m alone in these opinions... but they are mostly just that: opinions. You’re welcome to your own.