Betterc switch

Except it can't handle the header files and doesn't understand CPP.

its not perfect but it works: dlang.org/spec/cpp_interface.html

you forgot an "old school" community that actually does work and doesnt sperg about MUH INCLUSION and MUH EMPOWERMENT

I meant C pre-processor

that sounds pretty cool, if I need to write a C program next time, I will use that.
plan9 C is also pretty cool but not available in linux.

rust!!

Attached: 45607210_276011086434718_8377144118106652672_n.jpg (459x660, 37K)

How is D anything different from C++? Both are C incremented by one. I prefer R since it's C+15.

>Vibe.d is garbage
Why?

D is the one who got away, close to perfection (specially with the betterc switch), but it never got a break.

really makes me sad when good tech gets ignored like this

You know what, just for that post user, I am going to try something with D-lang. Is it any viable for developing web projects now? Still kinda unsure how ambitious I want to get with this without being hard-cucked by lack of libs

doesn't seem that bad compared to Go, Swift and Rust which are direct competitors.

tiobe.com/tiobe-index/

have fun with mixins! you wont be able to go back.
as for your question, check vibed.org/
damn 21st! so close to the top 20 hehe, who knows we might see something happening in the future.
also they are trying to implement borrow checker for D, still have mixed feelings about that..

D or D with betterc switch? Which is the best?

why not just use C though? I've never used D myself, but I find C to be somewhat perfect general purpose language.

Yatima1460 shill?

D's picking up some traction, but not much. It's certainly nicer to get going with now than ten years ago though.

Why do people make new languages to replace C then?

people make programming languages for the same reason they make music or other creative stuff.

slow

>tranny flag
>maga
>awoo
>ponyshit
I'm not sure I understand wtf this image is supposed to convey

Why use D rather than Rust, OP? The only reason I can think of is compile time and that's not really significant when you can buy a 16 thread CPU for $200
at least say C++. If you're going to sperg about OO, consider that you can use as much or as little of it as you choose (and in a lot of cases it is useful to). imagine not having generics
C++ is just C. they should have named it ++C

>> use can use OOP as much or as little as you want (and in a lot of cases it useful to)

I'm confused by the statement. Is it good to use plenty of OOP features or use as little as possible?

He said that this decision is up to you.

I know, but the way he phrased the sentence made it ambiguous to whether he likes OOP or not.

It depends on the situation. I'm not a fan of using OOP for everything as with Java, but it's pretty useful sometimes, particularly if you're working with generics

Ah, gotcha.

That sounds like an immature way to look at programming. If the point of programming is to solve problems, then one must develop tools that help solve those problems. Sometimes those tools happen to be languages themselves. C was made because its creators needed a language to program the UNIX system, not because they needed a new mixtape.

>That sounds like an immature way to look at programming.
you sound like a pajeet. most of the real programmers start out of curiosity and continue for fun, after a point it becomes their job.
it doesn't matter how old are you, programming is 1. fun, 2. job. if it's the other way around, you start suffering.

about C, don't forget that B was for fun, unix was for fun, and nobody pushed dmr to create a systems programming language, assembly was sufficient for ken, dmr made it for fun. there was no requirement as unix was a fun project to begin with.

back to your street.

I concur. This is straight up pajeet talk right there lmao

As an Adafag I understand your pain,seeying goodtechnology rotting in a corner because tranies like more some piece of crap hurts.

Solving problems and finding solutions is fun, I agree. It is hard to argue that anyone who develops a new programming language does it with a frown on his face.
You know what's not fun? Trying to solve a problem without having suitable tools. And if you try to do it anyway? Things break. Fixing stuff often breaks stuff, and breaking stuff sometimes fixes stuff! You may get the job done, sure, but it will be a messy job, as reliable as a house made of straw.
So sure, go have fun with programming languages. Have fun programming C and C++ even, it's alright. But when the time comes that the only reason to program C is dogma, then it's better to just drop it and move on.

>Why use D rather than Rust, OP?

Ridiculously powerful metaprogramming instead of bondage. I feel like the question should basically be reversed. Why use a language where the key feature is that you fight the compiler in order to create non-trivial data-structures instead of one where the compiler is designed to automate as much shit as possible?

>why not just use C though?

Because -bettterC D literally does everything C does (sans pre-processor macros), but better, and without all the downsides of C++.

why it is not popular then?
there must be a reason.

Ubiquity != Utility

pajeet/a detected

Why do so many people have difficulty confessing that almost everything done by humans is caused by several reasons, not only one. We live in a multi variable world, it is not so difficult to understand.
You are both right. Both reasons have coexisted for creating programming languages.

Dlang is just an interface for the boost library with a futuristic-ish C++ syntax. Just use boost with C++ instead, same shit, less compicated.
100% chad approved.

I used to be a fan of D, but every other language seems so awful after learning Haskell

I've been looking into D for a while, because of that one guy who shills it.
It seems like C++ but done sort-of sensibly. At least more sensibly than how the C++ committee's handled things.
I'm disappointed it never took off.

>Why use D rather than Rust, OP?
>C++ is just C. they should have named it ++C
Why is it so plainly fucking obvious that rust """"programmers""" know literally fucking nothing about programming at all?
It's just rude how obnoxiously and blatantly stupid and arrogant you dumb cunts are.
This is a thread about fucking D for fuck's sake, and you have to project your insecurities about insecurities all over the place.
Just deal with the fact that most C++, C, and for that matter, D programmers are better than you are, and don't stuggle with the memory safety issues that you do, and stay the fuck out of systems languages.
Those CVEs you blame other languages for happened because of people like you, not the language.

>D with betterc is like C++40
D has static reflection and metaclasses? Where?

D with betterc doesn't even have half the power of C++

D is a shitlang that doesn't have any objective and so fails at everything

>C++
>less complicated

They just made too many mistakes and gave away all their chances to gain a big userbase. They blew multiple chances, which is more than most languages get. Now it will eventually fade in a painful, long way over the course of, say, 10 years and then GDC will be kicked out of GCC.

Also

>betterc
There are better languages to write C-like code in.
>all of the languages pros and no cons
of what languages cons? C++? hahah, no
>no GC
No standard library.
>insanely fast builds for development productivity using dmd
>insanely fast performance using GDC or LDC for release builds
Can't cover this with one compiler? Fuck off.
>directly use C and C++ libraries, no wrappers or overhead
>D syntax with C and C++ ecosystem
Garbage, and C++ only works as long as your D compiler understands your version and brand of C++ compilers ABI. Good luck maintaining that.