Join the discussion
Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.
- Hacker News
- Good language.
- Most elegant language!by WalterBright
- I had no idea Code Node was still going strong, I used to goto a lot of events thereby jpfromlondon
- I don't know why but dlang continues to draw me - I've really enjoyed many of the talks in the pastby qwe----3
- for those (like me) completely new but interested in new programming languages - can you or similar minds summarize the current appeal?by swyx
- I always try it every few years, but I can never figure out how to get a good ide experience. I’ve tried both VSCode and IntelliJ. I most recently tried to make it work for advent of code last year. Maybe I’m just too used to how good the IDE experience for Java is?by vips7L
- Cool that the low-level configuration system and settings management tool of GNOME 3 gets its own conference!by cachius
- I came in here wondering why a config database is in London. It's quite unfortunate to name your conference after a much more popular, or at least widely used software (try searching dconf in a non personalized search engine)by Ferret7446
- We really have a problem naming things... this is the d language conference, not the gnome dbus configuration system...by nubinetwork
- Even if you don't use D, I highly recommend watching some of the talks since I find them interesting and dense in information.by p0nce
- What’s the status of the OpenD fork?[0] I see Adam is still active there but I’m not sure if it’s had any impact beyond losing him as an upstream contributor.by bayesnet
- Upstream has followed several of opend's innovations: we shipped interpolated expressions on day one of the fork (that was the straw that broke the camel's back) and then, after 7 years of procrastination, upstream also merged it a week later. We shipped extern(Objective-C) support, upstream backported it (and actually fixed enough bugs that I replaced my original impl with their's) a few months later. Upstream has talked about "safe by default" for over nine years. We shipped "safer by default" as a compromise (full safe by default is too much of a breaking change) a few months after forking, then a few months after we shipped it, upstream announced their own "safer by default" switch (which you have to opt into, so they kinda missed the point of "by default" but still, they followed the overall concept). For basically ever, Walter has said null checks in the language were a hard no, we implemented them and then.... guess what, a few months later, my implementation was backported (and again, a few bugs fixed so i appreciate the collaboration when we can get it) and walter decided to allow the merge. Opend shipped druntime on webassembly, looks like something similar coming to upstream. We merged the tuple destructuring PR (that was open for years again so the author was happy to get it to land somewhere!) and upstream followed there too.
There's a lot of smaller things that haven't been pulled though, like i merged a bug fix to module naming, which was an upstream PR from like 2018, a fix on library file name generation, a regression from 2019 but has a trivial workaround, a fix to redefined reflection names which everyone finds annoying, the implementation was written in 2017, but they had endless debates about syntax and i just made an executive decision and moved on but they still bikeshed... stuff like that, they're all little things but minor annoyances every time you hit them and the fixes were easy, so just do it!
Then the two bigger things I did they have talked about but probably won't do is i made the class monitor opt-in, this is a relatively big breaking change, I had to do fixes on 8 different projects. Each one took a few minutes, so not a huge deal, but still. They talked about this in an upstream meeting but decided against taking it (for now at least).
And then I changed the default init of all built in types to zero, including char and float, and this is controversial since float init to nan has legitimate advantages, and the breakage can be subtle if you don't catch it. I was on the fence personally, it more like a 51-49 vote rather than an obvious bug fix, but it is easier to explain to newbies that int and float both init to 0. In theory, you are supposed to explicitly initialize all these all the time, but in practice we know it is different.
So I think the competitive edge is pushing them a little. And I'm not anti-collaboration; I write blogs about my implementations with the hope that they'll give a little code review and that's been semi-successful, like the upstream backporters have indeed fixed bugs in my implementations so I'm happy to share back and forth, we both win that way.
- First day seems very LLM heavy, and sounds quite odd for Phobos 3. I would like to see Phobos 3 be more betterC forward, since I have found D to be nicer than C for WASM, but you can't use most nice things. Having a default RAII vector class for betterC and a hashmap would be super nice too.
Edit: Also would be nice to adopt move and copy semantics even closer to C++ and maybe need less explicit moves, and ideally less mess with calling __xdtor when trying to do RAII
- > Having a default RAII vector class for betterC and a hashmap would be super nice too.
You can find such @nogc collections in `dplug:core` or `nulib` packages.
> I would like to see Phobos 3 be more betterC forward.
It is, some part of it is going to be called BaseD and with a more restricted subset, without GC usage.
by p0nce - we shipped druntime on emscripten on the opend side almost two years ago, supporting everything but threads and exceptions (i tested on emcc 3.1.69, i heard a later version of emscripten broke, im not sure). see my blog post from release time: https://dpldocs.info/this-week-in-arsd/Blog.Posted_2024_10_2...
there's a contributor working with both upstream and opend adding wasi support as well, and he also got exception support working, we'll probably ship that next month.
so the full d story on wasm is progressing too.
- I haven't announced my keynote yet, but it's about various ways of handling errors and their tradeoffs. This has inspired some spirited debate in the D forums! I'm looking forward to engaging with everyone.by WalterBright
- would you ever do an SF edition? would be happy to host for you. i do a lot of conferences.by swyx
- Going to include the common lisp condition system in the comparison?by macoovacany
- Ages ago in C++ there was the hope of having the standard library give more error codes and use error values instead of full exceptions. Zig has some excellent innovations in that direction, any hope of that in D?
Edit: I think it was called "Herbception"s after Herb Sutter, and it really sounded like a good idea to me