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.
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).
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).
Now that’s a stretch, it could be anything (no, it couldn’t, although I think this may have application to some other pairs of languages)
I mean, that’s just my interpretation. I don’t think it’s a stretch though, switching to memory safe languages like rust has been pretty big recently.
How did you interpret the comic?
I should have added a ‘/s’, but I thought it is somewhat obvious, it really reminds of all the ‘git gud at C instead of doing Rust’
Yeah, hard to tell without the /s unfortunately.
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.
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).
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.
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@trustedthen@system).