Why we chose not to use D for our Linux project

[Chris R. Miller]

Ty Tower Wrote:

> Lars Ivar Igesund Wrote:
> 
> > I suppose you already made your decision, but as mentioned, a question in
> > the forum would have given you more information on this. DDBI has moved
> > very slowly over the last 18 months, but is being picked up again now, and
> > will hopefully have a new release soonish. DDBI in trunk is now Tango only,
> > but should work with DMD 1.028/29.
> 
> > I won't critize your company for making the choice it did, as it obviosly
> > will need to earn money, but I don't see how you can expect the community
> > to do what you want it to do with getting involved yourself. 
> 
> He has just done so?

He criticized the decision, but everyone's entitled to their own opinion.

Ruby is probably a better choice for a product they need to make money off of.  Ruby has a bigger community, it's older, and more stable.  It has better, more mature libraries, and setting it up is far easier than it is with D.  

In addition, he said that database support was lacking in D.  I have to second that.  DDBI is really the only viable tool that I can find, and on its dsource page it says to not use it because it's "going to change."  I can totally understand the confusion on that point.  The Tango confusion, not so much.

Ruby, on the other hand, is an SQL embedded language.  Doing things with databases is going to be trivially easy with Ruby.

Furthermore, Ruby has some excellent web-facing support with Ruby on Rails.  If they wanted to add some web-facing support to their product, they could use the exact same source code and the exact same libraries for the web application that they use for the rest of the whole mess.  Ruby can also make use of C extensions, which will doubtlessly become useful for managing - or even mangling - videos (since Ruby itself isn't all that fast in comparison).  That will also allow them to tap into an existing, impressive set of C libraries for video stuff, which they won't have to code.

It's probably a better choice to go with Ruby -- for **them**.

> > > I think some serious attention needs to be focused on this, rather than
> > > the minutiae of the latest cool language feature.  I have been following D
> > > for some years now, hoping it would all come together --- and I hope it
> > > does, soon --- as it feels D is being left in the dust.
> > 
> > Tools situation may have stagnated, but I'm not sure you have followed Tango
> > too closely :)
> > 
> This is a typical of a lot of what like to call themselves "The D Community"
> They are more interested in attacking the messenger.
> 
> Torhu says as well that DBI should work with 1.029 etc etc but has he checked? Has Lars checked?  Obviously Bill checked and it didn't .
> 
>  If you aren't sure why post?

I found that it compiled into a library with DMD 1.030, though I haven't verified to see if it works beyond that point.  Neither 1.029 or 1.030 are stable, so they really don't count much.

> From what I have seen it is a mess but listening to people like this and DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT would be a good start . Don't start on me ! I am still here and contributing with posts wherever I see stupidity, or where somethiong does not work properly, but I am no master programmer so I can't fix it.

The obvious solution is to write more code.

A very good friend of mine and an absolutely fantastic programmer once told me some great advice: stop making stupid UML diagrams and write code!