• CanadaPlus
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Yeah, Rust is simply the big one right now. It could just as easily apply to people in the 1960’s who didn’t want to adopt structured programming, or a compiler at all.

    • ZILtoid1991@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 months ago

      I personally prefer the memory safety tools offered by D over Rust. D also doesn’t come with const by default, and you can even opt out of the RAII stuff a certain graphics driver developer boasted about in the Linux developer mailings (RAII can be a bad for optimization).

      • CanadaPlus
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        2 months ago

        I feel like this has come up before, and D is not memory safe. It has some helper-type features, but at the end of the day it is still C-like.

        • ZILtoid1991@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 months ago

          Not if you opt in it. You can even put @safe: in the beginning of your D source code, then you’ll have a memory safe D (you have to opt out by using @trusted then @system).

          • CanadaPlus
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            Alright, I’ll actually dive into the research again…

            Oh, I see, D is garbage collected, so really it’s more like Java or Python. Maybe that’s what I’m remembering. Also, @safe code sounds like it’s pretty limited - far more limited than non-unsafe Rust.

            Basically, if a language had been Rust before Rust showed up, Rust would have been a non-event. They solved a problem that was legitimately open at the time.