// get the current class' meta object
QMetaObject* meta = this->metaObject(); // emphasized 'this' access to show this working on the current class
QString ClassName = meta->className();

// open the file
QFile file(ClassName + ".txt"
file.open(QIODevice::ReadOnly);
QDataStream in(&file); // allow reading serialized data from the file

QString method1, method2;
in >> method1;
in >> method2;

// invoke the methods
meta->invokeMethod(this, method1, Qt:irectConnection);
meta->invokeMethod(this, method2, Qt:irectConnection);

e.g. MyClass.txt contains 2 lines: "getName", "getTime" . I want a class called MyClass with two methods getName() and getTime() now.

I actually spent most of my time with gdc as I’m a Linux guy and a Tango fan. Unfortunately gdc + windows + tango is still a bit of an issue as well, so when compiling on windows I had to use dmd.

If you have no need to use dmd your mileage will probably be quite a bit better, as almost all the major problems I encountered were with dmd… that being said it’s still quite easy to ICE gdc, especially if you start playing with mixins or doing any template metaprogramming. Other small issues with gdc: default function parameters being assigned via static struct / class opCalls can segfault the compiler. Little things like that, fortunately which are mostly easily worked around.

My intent with the post wasn’t to dissuade people from playing with D (which I still think is a great language), I just wanted to make sure people are aware of the real deal when it comes to developing with D.

Learning D has had a major impact on my programming style, and what I’ve now come to demand from a language, so regardless of the fact that I won’t be using D until some time in the future when the issues are sorted, I’m still grateful I took the time to learn it.

And totally agreed on the simplicity.

The cool thing about D is it has a lot of the syntactual niceties of Python — array slices, built in strings and associative arrays, easy collection iteration, and is definitely way simpler than C++.

One of the things that really (and I mean REALLY) shines about D though, is the Tango standard lib. It’s by far and above the best language runtime I’ve ever come across both in terms of design and quality, and for striking a perfect balance between including a nice full feature set, without offering too much (ie no Java’s even-the-kitchen-sink-isn’t-as-bloated-as-this-API issue).

Don’t get me wrong, I’d never say that D is more efficient to develop in than Python or Ruby as a general statement — obviously there’s cases where Python is the right choice, and there’s cases where D might be, or C++, or Objective-C, and so on. I do, however, still hold to the statement that if D lived up to its potential, it really could fit the bill as a low-level system level language that can be as fast, or even faster, than some of the scripting languages (including Python) to develop in (for certain tasks).

And you’re right the reason is part syntax, part standard library, and part simplicity.

If it weren’t for the issues I discussed in the post D really would be a joy to develop in.

p.s. Thanks for the note on the Firefox 3 issue! I’ll look into that.

It’s not the syntax, that much is clear. In fact if anything the Python syntax is slower than C/C++/D. No increment / decrement operators, no ternary operator, and just more verbose all around.

So what is it then? It’s language features and standard library. Python is so handy because of its built in strings, associative arrays, and quick and easy to use runtime. Python is actually a different case because it’s a dynamic language so that helps in some cases and detracts in others, but D also makes some rounds in that area with its extensive traits system.

The thing that I argue puts D on par with languages like Python and Ruby is precisely those language features. D has associative arrays, garbage collection, etc, and a super handy standard lib / runtime. I’m just as much a Python user as a D developer, and I really do believe D can be faster to develop in — they just serve different purposes, so you have to pick your task accordingly of course.

But… if you don’t believe start playing with D and give it a go yourself! Despite my post-mortem I’m still glad I picked up D. It opened my eyes to the fact that there is a hole in the system-level language area, and although I don’t think D covers it yet, maybe some day it will, or maybe something else will? Maybe C++ will step up. Who knows.