Why Haven't You Learned D

Why haven't you learned D, prog? It's easy to use, has amazingly powerful templates, supports many types of programming, and has an instantly recognizable syntax if you're familiar with any of the Algol-derived languages. But most important of all, it wasn't written by jews.

D does not fulfill the niche of C or C++ developers. It is a managed language, like Go.

http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/biz-dominates-tech.html
http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/lang-comparisons.html
Borderline condescending non-answers, no wonder the C++ FQA exists.

>>1
Algol-derived languages
Basic Algol-like syntax is begin...end for blocks, if...then...else for conditionals, := for assignment, = for equality and statements separated (not terminated) by semicolons. Pascal is Algol-derived, D is not. If you go all the way back to Algol, you could say D is also Lisp-derived because of the GC and Fortran-derived because of infix notation. There's a common misunderstanding among /g/eeks and /b/tards that Algol had curly braces, object.method(), string escape characters and C-style for loops, when a few minutes on Wikipedia (or with an Algol compiler) will show you this is not the case. C is in a different language family (BCPL) with its own syntax and it's even less Algol-like than BCPL.
Why are people so embarrassed that their language is related to C? It's like the JavaScripters. They'd rather call it a neutered Scheme (with no tail recursion, macros or linked lists) than a dynamically-typed object-oriented C with closures.

>>43
I call it that because I've only ever heard to it referred to as being in the Algol family, though I don't know why this would be so, and I agree that it doesn't make much sense. I associate the syntax of languages like Java, D, etc. more with C than C's predecessors, anyway.

>>41
D does not fulfill the niche of C or C++ developers. It is a managed language, like Go.
The only major difference between D and C++ is garbage collection, even Bjarne Stroustrup said that C++ works well with garbage collection. gc adds a lot, you dont need stupid things like 'smart pointers' anymore, in fact gc allows you to make a safe subset within D that is guaranteed safe. But you can turn that off if you have to do unsafe systems level programming where unsafe types and pointers are used, basically putting D back to C++'s level.

The only major difference between D and C++ is garbage collection,
Oh, I guess D sucks too then.

>>46
I don't particularly like GC either, but at least it can be turned off.

>>47
No, GC is often fine and great when it can be turned off. I'm talking about the fact that it's not sufficiently different than C++.

not sufficiently different than C++.
Just the fact it has a single kind of usable utf-8 string (apart from wstring and dstring sizes) as opposed to 40 different reimplementations of a string class in C++ is enough to me.

>>49
Just the fact it has a single kind of usable utf-8 string as opposed to 40 different reimplementations of a string class in C++ is enough to me.
you are a dumbfuck, C++ only supports type char arrays, it doesnt have strings types at all, the string class just encapsulates char functionality. D has utf-8 which is a real string type

>>50
For someone who dishes out ``dumbfuck'' you seem to have missed the point entirely of that post, not to mention that you are wrong that C++ ``only supports type char arrays'' for storage, as there are wchar_t arrays as well (and those are either 16-bit or 32-bit depending on the platform) which may contain anything from ASCII to EBCDICK and whatever other storage schemes used by uncountable wrapper classes out there, ICU for example uses a UChar array for the code points which, unlike a wchar_t, is always 16-bit, and D doesn't have a ``real string type'' either (its an alias to immutable(char)[]).

i am learning D

well i was
it's a brilliant language, don't get me wrong BUT there is a single problem holding it back.
IT'S IS SO POORLY DOCUMENTED.
and this is the single thing that is holding the language back, the lack of documentation for anything apart from the standard library causes the language to become completely inaccessible to anyone new to the language.

GTKD is only learnable through a bunch of code snippets and completely lacks complete tutorial

Derelict is a nightmare, not only it's a pain in the ass to get the dam thing to work in the first place but complete absence of any decent documentation makes it a huge chore to make a workable program.

D has the potential to be a brilliant language but if you want people to pick up the language you'll need to fix complete absence of documentation and tutorials for both GTK and Derelict libraries.

>>51
the fact remains C++ does not have built in strings, you can import all the string libraries you want but the compiler only sees null delimited char arrays. string types are part of the compiler in D (know matter how its implemented) so the compiler can check it and prove its correctness

>>52
documentation is not D's only shortfall, Walter simply does not know how to run a software company or even a software project. D is not going to go anywhere till it gets picked up by a compiler company who can build an IDE around it. you cant expect the open source community to do that kind of thing

>>53

you are saying making an IDE for a language is harder than throwing in the grammar, and maybe some type and scope matching rules into an existing IDE? IDEs must be terrible!

>>54
IDEs must be terrible!
they are terrible, you can to the IDE section of the dlang.com forums to find that out. having a comprehensive IDE for a language like D is as important as the language itself. there is no way any major software company is going to use D as a main development language with shit IDE choices

>>53
you can't expect Walter to know anything about business, he is a techie.

Mono D is quite a nice IDE (well technically an extension) but it does everything you really want from an IDE for D
it's also free and easily available and supports things like debugging, monoD isn't quite enterprise ready but i can't see it lacking that potential

what D needs is:

1) A decent book on language basics, Alexandrescu arrogantly compares his book to K&R but it's complete crap. K&R nicely introduces the concepts of the language and gives intriguing exercises to newbies etc, Alexandrescu on the other hand just regurgitates code at you, it's a HORRIBLE book, the only other book is a tango book, and tango is shit standard library.
D needs a book to teach phobos to a complete newbie, Aiming tutorials at experience programmers never creates a good tutorial.

2) a structured tutorial/book on GTKD
what is a language without a tutorial on any GUI library?
D is the only language that seems to suffer from this deficiency,
this alone could put businesses off from adapting D

3)book on the other libraries (OpenGL, SDL etc)


the accessibility of the language is key to it's adaptation, people will not be motivated to learn the language if they have to search for hour ors constantly bother communities to try and obtain information they could get in a 5 minute google search with C

i would be inclined to write an open Latex book to address these 3 issues but i am both too inexperienced for especially 3 and i also know i would be too lazy and abandon the whole thing after a couple of days

I'm not learning D yet because I am learning Haskell. I'm sure D is nice however.

>>57
Haskell will never be popular. It's too hard for average progie.

>>58
That doesn't bother me. The less idiots, the better.

>>56
D has stronger integration with C and C++ than other languages, so it is not as important to write books and documentation about how to use libraries with a C or C++ interface. in regards to GUI toolkits, these are things that should not have an API in any particular language. QT is a C++ library, but they are moving away from the C++ interface by using JSON. This is something that should happen to all GUI toolkits, this is why GTK is dying, nobody wants a funky C API that fakes OO

I'D RATHER LEARN THE /d/ PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE

>>59
Your demise wont bother goyim either. The less Jews, the better.

Im looking for a print function, it cant be printeffe (thats french for printf) or any stdio function. It has to be of 2 or more paramètres (thats french for 2 parameters) and has be be petite (small) sized. And has to be really choupi-trognon (cute). Also It has to be about 10-20 bux. And you have to post documentation of it first (i want to make shure it's choupi-trognon [cute]). And it would be nice if it came with matching input reading (WITH error handling). OH! and it CANNOT have any complicated syntax, or be made out of C. It has to be made of C++, or something like that. Also it would be nice if it was made in france. and not in germany or britanny (uk) or whatever. I have found a function similar to the one im describing in sourceforge, but it was 1 paramètre, and i dont want my format (formatting) to touch my other things (it can get mixed up and i would not like that, plus 2 paranètres looks more choupi-trognon)

>>45

So I need to code around GC to use unsafe features just like C#

Not learning D becouse reading OnLisp, learning Common Lisp having read teh first chapters of SICP. I want to learn the macro useage from OnLisp and then learn Clojure which i might have a chance to use in a work enviroment.

>>64
Why would you ever need to use ``unsafe'' features in a user-mode application?

>>66
Usually it's because the interpreter's JIT is a pile of shit.

>>66
not the person youre quoting, but...
you would usually only need unsafe features in systems level programming, not user applications, but you can localize unsafe code in a small part of the program so it wont affect the rest of the program

>>67
D is not an interpreted language

>>69
Then it's because the compiler is a pile of shit complex high-level code cannot be optimized properly without profiling, thus making static compilers for such languages entirely useless.

>>70
thats not true anymore now that we have LLVM which can do both compile time and run time optimizations. LLVM originally stood for Low Level Virtual Machine, so that it takes advantage of all the optimizations of a runtime virtual machine in an optimized language. and D is implemented on the LLVM with ldc

>>62
0/10 stay mad

>>71
so that it takes advantage of all the optimizations of a runtime virtual machine in an optimized language.
I meant to say it takes advantage of VM runtime optimizations on a ~compiled~ language

>>56
the only other book is a tango book, and tango is shit standard library.
The "Learn to Tango with D" book is actually very good for giving a brief and to the point introduction to D syntax. The first few chapters just covers D syntax. If you dont like the Tango libraries then just ignore the rest of the book.