Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

D Language Front-End Proposed For GCC 8, 800k Lines of Code

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • D Language Front-End Proposed For GCC 8, 800k Lines of Code

    Phoronix: D Language Front-End Proposed For GCC 8, 800k Lines of Code

    A set of 13 patches amounting to nearly 800k lines of new code were sent out Sunday morning for adding a D language front-end to the GNU Compiler Collection (GCC)...

    Phoronix, Linux Hardware Reviews, Linux hardware benchmarks, Linux server benchmarks, Linux benchmarking, Desktop Linux, Linux performance, Open Source graphics, Linux How To, Ubuntu benchmarks, Ubuntu hardware, Phoronix Test Suite

  • #2
    Just curious. What is the D language good for other than someone who hates C or C++ syntax ? And as far as safety is concerned how does D compare to Rust ?

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Jumbotron View Post
      Just curious. What is the D language good for other than someone who hates C or C++ syntax ? And as far as safety is concerned how does D compare to Rust ?
      D has a couple of things which some people like. It is like C++ (but with none of the bizarre intermediate legacy features which sane people avoid like the plague), except that it uses a garbage collector by default, instead of RAII. It also has compile-time execution, so it can execute any valid D expression at compile time instead of executing it every time the program runs; a similar feature exists in other languages like Elixir. This can be very useful for compiling configurations or other human-readable text into dense datastructures cleanly and without any special build system support.

      Rust is safer. D is probably less anal, shooting for some medium where it's hard to introduce allocation bugs, but slower to allocate and free because of GC; you will probably spend less time refining the behaviour of your program in D, but you will pay a performance (and correctness) penalty compared to Rust.

      Comment


      • #4
        Nice; if this makes it, it will become much easier to package D applications, since DMD has a weird license and LDC is not part of LLVM either.

        Originally posted by Jumbotron View Post
        And as far as safety is concerned how does D compare to Rust ?
        I don't use Rust and the safety features myself, but D has a safe subset for that: http://dlang.org/spec/memory-safe-d.html I'm not really sure what Rust has that D wouldn't have.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by microcode View Post

          D has a couple of things which some people like. It is like C++ (but with none of the bizarre intermediate legacy features which sane people avoid like the plague), except that it uses a garbage collector by default, instead of RAII. It also has compile-time execution, so it can execute any valid D expression at compile time instead of executing it every time the program runs; a similar feature exists in other languages like Elixir. This can be very useful for compiling configurations or other human-readable text into dense datastructures cleanly and without any special build system support.
          Exactly

          Originally posted by microcode View Post
          Rust is safer. D is probably less anal, shooting for some medium where it's hard to introduce allocation bugs, but slower to allocate and free because of GC; you will probably spend less time refining the behaviour of your program in D, but you will pay a performance (and correctness) penalty compared to Rust.
          No Rust is not safer than D, both languages just use different way to achive memory safty. Allocating or freeing memory in D is generaly faster than in Rust, but it is not deterministic. AFAIK D is faster then Rust in many cases.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Jumbotron View Post
            Just curious. What is the D language good for other than someone who hates C or C++ syntax ? And as far as safety is concerned how does D compare to Rust ?
            Module system instead of namespaces, UFCS, CTFE, static if, much faster compilation time, GC (I konw it is possible to use GC in C++ too, but you know ) and better syntax which is crucial for many of us.

            Comment


            • #7
              Awesome! Why wasn't added the first time they tried?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by danieru View Post
                Awesome! Why wasn't added the first time they tried?
                It seems like issues with code style and quality

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by danieru View Post
                  Awesome! Why wasn't added the first time they tried?

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-5T...rCm7eB&index=9

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by GreatEmerald View Post
                    Nice; if this makes it, it will become much easier to package D applications, since DMD has a weird license and LDC is not part of LLVM either.
                    DMD 's backend has been relicensed recently, it's now 100% Boost licensed

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X