I wish I could use D for everything

[Unknown W. Brackets]

For another real world example, we had a server daemon written in Java 
and it took forever, had huge problems, cost us quite a bit, etc. etc.

We decided to have the same server rewritten in D, and it took 
significantly less time, works correctly according to spec, doesn't 
crash/hang half as often (the Java server would die in a way that made 
it appear to still be up, made us crazy), and more.

Sure, maybe this is a reflection of the programmer who worked on it - 
but in the end, D was by far the better route for us.

-[Unknown]


bearophile wrote:
> Walter Bright:
>> D aims to reduce project costs by reducing training time and shortening development time.<
> 
> I agree that this is very important. Helping the programmer avoid bugs and helping her to follow good design practices are among the most important qualities of a programming language, because in practical programming often most time (= money) is spent debugging programs and updating them.
> 
> But you are comparing D with C++, because programming in D1 is faster and often simpler than doing the same in C++.
> 
> But today most people use languages like Java, Python, C#, that often shorten developing time even more than D1.
> D1 is almost a system language, so it's not easy to compete with the productivity of application languages designed to put the programmer first and the CPU second.
> 
> And D2 is not an easy&simple language, you need a good amount of time to learn/teach it, more than Java for example.
> 
> Bye,
> bearophile