• BeigeAgenda@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    4 hours ago

    D is more than 20 years old (from 2001), so it’s due for a renaissance, Python was also in its 20s before it became fashionable.

    • ZILtoid1991@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      3 hours ago

      It kind of bounces back after the catastrophe that D1 vs D2 and Phobos vs Tango caused, but might be broken by AI bros trying to chase the vibe coding trend.

  • OwOarchist@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 hour ago

    It really does mystify me what anyone thinks they’re accomplishing by creating a brand new programming language these days. Other than a purely academic exercise, of course.

    Whatever features you want your language to have, there’s probably already a language out there that’s damn close to it. And if your ideal language is just like some existing language except for a few niggling details … then there’s no need to start from scratch – just make a modified version of that language with a few little changes to make it act the way you want.

    Programming languages are just about a solved problem now, IMO. I can’t imagine any scenario where creating a new language from scratch would be better than tweaking an existing language … or just using an existing language as-is.

    • Kaligalis@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 minute ago

      Rust is pretty fresh and really innovated a lot with its actual safe-by-default approach in a non-managed language actually able to replace C and C++.
      Most new languages aren’t a Rust, but just a Python (yet another low-performance language assuming you don’t actually need strong typing to realize later that actually, you do). But a Python is definitely easier to get started with than a Rust (or the footgun languages, it is able to replace). So there is definitely a use case for that too.
      Go is a good case of a young system application language designed for simplicity.
      And everyone creates a domain specific language once in a while. Those can make specific tasks a lot easier.

      Programming languages don’t really look like they are a solved problem. It seems like everything gravitates to Hindley Milner over time. But mainstream languages finally adopting null-checking at compile time by default and language features for parallel execution reaching the mainstream are recent enough that I think, there might still be a long way to go.
      And obviously, you want AI to code in a language which is as much deterministically compile-time-checked as possible because of the hallucination problem (which btw, is also present in humans; the technical term there is brain fart). I expect that to be something which requires writing actual mathematical proofs like one does in Coq solely because AI doesn’t try to kill you if you insist on it writing mathematical proofs for everything.
      The scaling limit already is the humans who have to do the code review. So any language which makes more bugs more obvious before the code reaches the review stage is extremely valuable even if writing code in it is a real PITA for humans (as long as they can read it, it’s fine).

  • dfyx@lemmy.helios42.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    4 hours ago

    Many years ago I read the D book and really liked many aspects of the language. What kept me from using it was the ecosystem. They had three compilers and two different standard libraries, none of which were fully compatible with each other which led to a whole bunch of weird problems. These days it’s probably better. Maybe I should give it another chance.

    • ZILtoid1991@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 hours ago

      Multiple in fact. D1 vs D2, Tango vs Phobos, mutable by default vs const by default (was minor, but allegedly lead to the existence of Rust), Adam D Ruppe leaving and forking the compiler (OpenD - might be useful to you depending on things), “let nazis code” (though DLF have not only backtracked on it but also set up some basic safety measures), etc. Can still recommend the language if you want a more C-style language and not OCaml with curly brackets, or if borrow checker is a dealbreaker for you in Rust.

      • nebeker@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 hour ago

        We really all need to get along and accept each others’ opinions. Even if some people are completely wrong and think mutable by default it OK. Hehe.

    • marcos@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 hours ago

      There have been something where some developers left, but I don’t remember it well enough to search for.

      • themoken@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        4 hours ago

        This is definitely about the D language, I just haven’t heard anything about in a long time (since Rust ate its lunch) and nothing about it using AI or long time devs leaving.

  • Feyd@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    4 hours ago

    Did they ever sort out the GC vs nonGC standard library kerfuffle? I was interested in dlang quite awhile ago but the ecosystem seemed fractured (and not big enough for that to be ok)

    • ZILtoid1991@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      3 hours ago

      Yes, they’re letting the community to deal with the noGC part, while Phobos will be strictly GC in the future.