Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by RcouF1uZ4gsC 1220 days ago
D could have been that. Back when it was released, D was so far ahead of C++98. However, D decided to go with garbage collection which kept it from being a replacement for C++. In addition, the D garbage collector never received the massive investment that Java’s garbage collector has received.
3 comments
gavinray 1219 days ago
The garbage collection is an optional feature you can disable though

There's a lot of "@nogc" D code out there. Audio FX plugins that do realtime DSP and game/graphics stuff come to mind.

I'd rather have the language give me a choice because it's very convenient to have. You'd be surprised how performant even GC'ed code in D's can be.

link
lenkite 1219 days ago
> The garbage collection is an optional feature you can disable though

Not if you wish to use the standard library though right ?

link
gavinray 1219 days ago
Some of it is nogc compatible, some of it isn't

All functions in the stdlib that are nogc are marked "nogc" in their definition

link
pjmlp 1219 days ago
The problem was never the GC per se, see TinyGo, Astrobe, microEJ, Meadows among others, rather always chasing the next big thing that could bring users, while leaving the other behind not fully done.

Now C++, Java and C# have many capabilities where D had an upper had back when Andrei's book came out, and naturally new competition also came into play with better corporate support.

link
fithisux 1219 days ago
Why is this bad? I am tired of the garbage collection thing.

If you make extensions for R/Tcl/Lisps for computations, plotting, abstract mathematics,

why the Garbage collection is bad?

You have native performance!

The only complaint is that D might think of adding some of the ergonomics of ML-family of languages. But it has its opinion (like Lisps) and I respect that.

Ergonomics and possibly safety could be goals.

link