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.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

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).

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

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).

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks 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.