"D is a systems programming language. Its focus is on combining the power and high performance of C and C++ with the programmer productivity of modern languages like Ruby and Python. Special attention is given to the needs of quality assurance, documentation, management, portability and reliability. D is statically typed, and compiles direct to native code. It's multiparadigm: supporting imperative, object oriented, and template metaprogramming styles. It's a member of the C syntax family, and its look and feel is very close to C++'s. See this comparison of D with C, C++, C#, and Java."
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-10-31
Could be speed. D strings, maps and arrays are faster than those provided by all C++ standard library implementations.
OTOH, IMHO, it says more about C++ standard library and its implementations than about D.
(OK, a bit of biased guerrilla marketing:
http://www.ultimatepp.org/www$uppweb2$vsstd$en-us.html
)
That benchmark has been discussed in one of the many "D is better than jesus" newsgroup discussions and it has been pointed out that, as you stated, it is an implementation issue and not a result of "buil-in-ness". If you are interested in that issue please read the discussion titled "How does D compare to C++?" on comp.lang.c++.moderated. In there once again the digital mars people claim (based on dishonest and incorrect comparissons) that D is some sort of second coming of jesus, claims which are promply corrected.
Member since:2005-11-20
has been pointed out that, as you stated, it is an implementation issue
Well, yes and no. While better design and implementation of C++ string/map library can match and most likely outperform D solution, it is nevertheless true that compiler can do much better about types it has full control about.
It is always a trade-off between flexibility and performance.
(Now all that said, personally I think C++ way is better...)
Member since:2006-12-21
Member since:
2005-11-20
Trying to incorporate non-primitive types like strings into the core language of a programming language which aims to be modular is a braindead decision. Do you want a couple of reasons? Well, unnecessary core language bloat and all those unnecessary modularity restrictions for starts. And knowing the disadvantages of the core language approach, what are their advantages?
Could be speed. D strings, maps and arrays are faster than those provided by all C++ standard library implementations.
OTOH, IMHO, it says more about C++ standard library and its implementations than about D.
(OK, a bit of biased guerrilla marketing:
http://www.ultimatepp.org/www$uppweb2$vsstd$en-us.html
)
The problem is that everytime a D article arises, the digitalmars people are behind it. Even in the newsgroups discussions, where Greg Comeau himself actively participates in spam campaigns on the
Are you sure you got the name right? Greg Comeau is of Comeau C++ glory, which is highly regarded 100% standard compliant C++ -> C compiler. AFAIK he has nothing to do with D (unless he got completely crazy very recently:) and I have never seen him posting about D in C/C++ newsgroups.
The man behind D is Walter Bright, author of Zortech C++, AFAIK second C++ compiler on the market (~1988).
Currently he provides Digital Mars C++, direct descendant of Zortech C++ and D language & compiler.