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)
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).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.