acehreli

Well, others might have said `i, s:` is not an independent label.

We may first need to go over what "elegant" means I guess. :)

D is technically better than C++ in most features. (It has always lead C++. For example, among about 100 new feauters that C++11 brought, only 2 were not already in D. No C++ designer will ever admit this fact.)

D is safer and more productive. It's a joy to write in D because most of the time it feels like whatever you think, you code. This is unlike C++ where you fight the language all the time. C++ is not a productive programming language. I say this with experience: I coded in C++ as an "expert" for many many years, including these last couple of years. It's not fun to write in C++, which translates to another kind of loss of productivity.

C++ is a burden and liability for companies but no CTO will be blamed for chosing it because it's popular. I can list so many popular things and persons that worth nothing but I will refrain from getting political.

Yes, on paper, there are way more C++ programmers out there than D programmers. But I interview these C++ programmers occasionally. Most of them don't even have an inkling that they don't know C++ at all.

How about engineering with C++? That is such a difficult task. I went over header file hygiene with a colleague a couple of months ago. The number of points that you should pay attention to is mind boggling: Don't #include unnecessarily, do forward declare as much as possible (but what can be forward declared is hard to understand even for experienced programmers), #include your own API header first to prove that it's complete (and good luck!), don't forget header guards, don't reuse header guards, etc. etc. This is just efficient header file usage! We haven't started coding yet!

My friends, the emperor doesn't have clothes. C++ simply is not a tool that is designed well. People who choose it do so because they have to or they are masochists. (True story: I asked a relatively young Google meetup presenter once why he was using C++ instead of a modern language and he said "because it is hard".) C++ separates the elite from the masses; I used to strive to be a C++ elite; I am not interested a bit anymore; I want to write useful programs with D; and I do.

D is niche only because humans are populists. We are not encouraged to use tools (or products) that are designed better. We follow popular leaders. It takes one some time to find his or her own voice to reject bad products and use only good ones. I am extremely lucky to work for a company that allows me to use D to write useful products.

I still take the same joy from programming that I did when I first learned it.

Then there is the human aspect of it: I want to be associated with real people isntead of snobby elites. (Remember how C++ was marketed at around 2000? "Yes, C++ is hard but it was never meant to be for normal programmers anyway." Ha ha ha! I am old enough now to reject that mentality. Bad design is bad design my friends; you can't defend it by blaming the user for not being elite.)

I can go on and on...

Now it's my turn to ask: Why would anyone choose C++ for their projects despite the production costs that it brings? None of your programmers really know it; they introduce hidden liabilities in the projects, their source code become non-refactorable monsters. Why waste that money on C++ when you can produce products easily. Products that just work...

All I need is another wave of motivation. I'm searching. :)

Author here... AMA.

Because Google saves us all.

It may not be a step function improvement but the difference is still night and day: Dreading one more line of C++ versus looking forward to many fun lines of D.

I mean... Modules versus header files, 13 times faster compilation, introspection, unittest, etc. etc. etc. Okay, it's more like death by a thousand cuts but once you produce with D, you can't even touch C++ anymore. I am in that state...

That historically backwards: C++ has been catching up to D since C++11.

I see what you mean but array of bytes is something else in D: byte[].

D's string is not text by itself because it is an array of UTF-8 code units. However, we have this infamous feature called auto-decoding in the standard library that presents strings as unicode code points.

On the other hand, D's dstrings are more like text because they are not only UTF-32 but also random-accessible code points. (D does not address multiple representations of graphemes at language level. For example, at language level, ğ is different from "g and combining breve" but there are std.uni and std.utf modules that help.)

> unit tests printed some weird error

I am not aware of a common issue like that but D has bugs.

> Also importC isn't what you think it is

That's contrary to my tests: I installed libplot on my system, 'import'ed its .h file to my D source code, called C functions from D, linked with -L-lplot and it worked.

> not importing foreign C libs you've installed on your system

Maybe you mean something else with "importing" but I installed a foreign C library on my system and it just worked without any hand-written D bindings for it.

No. We had a very long discussion about safe-by-default on the forums but failed to reach a consensus.

As I understand it, for safe-by-default to work, either all C libraries would have @trusted D bindings written, or all of them would have to be assumed to be @trusted. Most of the community wanted explicit @trusted annotations, Walter and others favored assuming them to be @trusted (or was it assumed @safe?) was the way to go. So, no safe-by-default at this time. :/

> memory usage and binary size

Don't forget the -betterC compiler switch please. ;)