Re: Feature suggestion: in-place append to array
Mike S <mikes <at> notarealaddresslololololol.com>
2010-04-01 03:38:37 GMT
bearophile wrote:
> The short D1 history shows that designers of small games are willing to use D. Some game designers seem
almost desperate to find an usable language simpler than C++. So I agree with you that D2 can be designed
keeping an eye at game designers too. But that's very demanding people, it's not easy to satisfy them even
with a mature language + compiler + std lib + dev tools. And currently nothing in D2 is mature. For them maybe
not even the most mature thing you can find in D world, the back-end of ldc (llvm), is mature enough
>
Yeah, you're right about the demanding tool and maturity requirements
that game studios have, but assuming people continue working on D and
other people adopt it and enhance the tools, those things will flesh out
over time. I'm young enough that I look forward to seeing it overtake
C++ in the game world someday.
>
>
> I am not able to tell the future. Some parts of D design are already old-style:
> - Some early design decisions make hard to inline D virtual functions (so if you write D code in Java style,
you see a significant slow down compared to similar Java code running with HotSpot). So far no one seems to
care of this, we'll see if I am right to see a problem here;
Well, writing code Java-style is certainly no problem for game devs,
considering they already minimize virtual function usage, at least in
lower code layers. ;)
> <snip>
>
> A system language is something that you can use to write very small binaries, that can be used to write a
kernel like Linux, device drivers for a smaller computer+CPU, etc. Such things are hard to do in D2, I don't
see Linus using D2 to write his kernel, he even thinks C++ is unfit. So I see D2 more like a "low-level
application language", on a level located somewhere between C and C#. It can also become a numerics
(Continue reading)