| 27 Jul 2024 |
 huayra1 | also, betterC is just a better C | 01:46:54 |
| huayra1 | modules, no preprocessor, better structs, native C library, scope(exit), (optional, opt-in) dangling pointer safety, the list goes on | 01:47:40 |
| huayra1 | dmd is your "test" compiler, ldc is your production compiler | 01:48:28 |
 NRK | In reply to@huayra1:matrix.org
also, betterC is just a better C https://nigeltao.github.io/blog/2019/xyz-abc-problem.html | 01:50:18 |
| NRK | In reply to@huayra1:matrix.org
modules, no preprocessor, better structs, native C library, scope(exit), (optional, opt-in) dangling pointer safety, the list goes on i can program just fine without them. why would i lock myself into a single implementation for "benefits" which i don't even need. | 01:52:37 |
| huayra1 |
People who are attracted to things like new programming languages tend to have an attitude that new things are usually good, and focus on the benefits.
released in 2001 but continue | 01:57:28 |
| NRK | the important bit is this
This means these two groups talk past each other, using different language entirely. The first group says “it’s so awesome, look at features X, Y and Z”. The second group says “the last time someone tried a thing like this, it caused problems A, B and C”. The first group laments “why doesn’t anyone recognize how important feature X is” without comprehending that they’re playing the wrong game entirely.
| 01:58:11 |
| NRK | the programming language used is simply not a big concern for me. that's all there is to it. so "better languages" do not attract me. | 01:59:53 |
| huayra1 |
i can program just fine without them.
okay so i won't find any dangling pointers in your code? also, it's an optional attribute. if you don't want it to slow down compile times, turn it off and it won't. simple
| 02:00:02 |
| huayra1 | In reply to @n_r_k:matrix.org
the important bit is this
This means these two groups talk past each other, using different language entirely. The first group says “it’s so awesome, look at features X, Y and Z”. The second group says “the last time someone tried a thing like this, it caused problems A, B and C”. The first group laments “why doesn’t anyone recognize how important feature X is” without comprehending that they’re playing the wrong game entirely.
what are problems in D? | 02:00:33 |
| NRK | i mean if you like D/betterC, you can use it. i'm not interested. | 02:01:21 |
 Kenny | Already being fine with C :p | 02:01:04 |
|  @davidmartinez:matrix.org joined the room. | 02:01:22 |
| huayra1 | i must be failing to find your point | 02:02:02 |
| NRK | In reply to@huayra1:matrix.org
i must be failing to find your point the point is that there's no point in trying to persuade me. you'll more or less be talking to a wall. | 02:02:17 |
| huayra1 | you come across as a 9p/C fan but then say you're language-agnostic | 02:02:24 |
| NRK | In reply to@huayra1:matrix.org
you come across as a 9p/C fan but then say you're language-agnostic i've never used plan 9. i've read bits about it here and there. | 02:04:41 |
 rrogalski | In reply to @huayra1:matrix.org
but hey at least it compiles much faster Read: compiles with less optimizations | 02:16:37 |
| NRK | In reply to@rrogalski:rrogal.ski
Read: compiles with less optimizations not really. both gcc and clang use pretty much the same optimizer for both c and c++. | 02:19:51 |
| NRK | c++ takes longer to compile because of a) templates b) more language feature means more work for the frontend to do | 02:20:46 |
| rrogalski | And d? | 02:20:47 |
| rrogalski | Is he using gdc? | 02:20:53 |
| rrogalski | Or the other homegrown one | 02:21:26 |
| rrogalski | Oh hey nrk what do u think of navi being an openrc maintainer now? | 02:22:11 |
| huayra1 | In reply to @huayra1:matrix.org
dmd is your "test" compiler, ldc is your production compiler @rrogalski:rrogal.ski: | 02:24:23 |
| huayra1 | dmd is purposefully fast but not very optimizing | 02:24:38 |
| @davidmartinez:matrix.org left the room. | 02:29:58 |
| rrogalski | Yeah | 02:31:02 |
| rrogalski | Compiling c will also be fast if you do -O0 | 02:31:12 |
| rrogalski | Or O1 | 02:31:19 |
