At a crossroad

[Nick Sabalausky]

"superdude" <superdude at superdude.net> wrote in message 
news:h2arpr$asm$1 at digitalmars.com...
> As someone who is reading this newsgroup instead of watching a soap opera, 
> I will give you my useless reasons why I have given up on D, completely:
>
> Lost focus:
> D was intended as a system programming language, at some point the 
> direction changed to a pure functional research toy. No longer intresting 
> for me.
>

D has always been about combining the low-level abilities of C with 
higher-level abilities C lacks. D already has the low-level stuff pretty 
well handled. Improving something on the higher-level does nothing to change 
that.

> D2 Vapoware:
> Using pure, side effect free, shared nothing, transitiv, functional 
> programming D2 will automatically distribute your program on multiple 
> cores and your programm will run - magically - number of cores times - 
> faster.
> If not, at least D2 will make it possible to write multithreaded programs, 
> easily. Besides this it is still an ideal system programming language. You 
> can use it to build the next operating system. *Show me the results, 
> YESTERDAY!* Unfortunately it will not be compatible with D1, so prepare 
> yourself to rewrite your programs.
>

You're severely overstating the reality of D1->D2 conversion.

> Library Split:
> "I'm not interested in Tango and in no way I'm going to support it! Phobos 
> is the standard library. Period." - I was looking for such a sentence. Or 
> "Ok, Tango is great. It will replace Phobos. Phobos will only stay for 
> backwards combatibility."
>

DRuntime should have been allowed into D1, so we don't have to deal with 
this in the interim before D2 matures. I'll grant that. But at the very 
least, they're both going to coexist just fine in D2. Sure, it may not be 
totally ideal, but it works a lot better than most people who have a 
knee-jerk reaction to "What? Two std libs?" usually think.

> I recognized I'm looking for something different:
> I recognized what I actually want is not D. It is a python or ruby - with 
> the speed of C. I'm aware it does not exist, yet. But actually it is a lot 
> easier and more fun to use Python and write some performance critical 
> stuff in C or C++ than to use D. All this template stuff... For what? Give 
> me a high dynamic language, please.

If you want a dynamic language, why have you ever been paying attention to 
D?

What I want is a static language, but you're not going to see me going over 
to the Python boards and complaining to them "You're language isn't what I 
want it to be!".

> D offers too less compared to C++, C# or Java.

Umm, how so? Specifics?

> And D is usually slower than C++ or Java...

That's debatable, and yea there are some specific things that are slower but 
they're being working on. "But D should spending more time working on X, and 
less time on Y!", Yea and if it did that, then people would start whining 
the opposite.

>
> Zealots trolling in the news:
> Sometimes very offending discussions in the forum.

It's a lot better than many forums I've been to.

> Some people show very litle tollerance to different opinions. No one steps 
> in and says: "Stop it, now! It's enough! This is not a forum about XXXXX. 
> It's about the D programming language!".
>

Discussion-topic police create far more contention and chaos than unhindered 
discussion does.

> As long as superdan is licking his balls and fucking his mother. -

Oh please, superdan is just a troll. I stopped reading his posts months ago. 
That in and of itself improves the signal/noise ratio considerably.

> Nothing will change. There will be at least two standard libraries. Who 
> gives a fucking shit! There will never be a a high concurrent D2 - It's 
> the halting problem, you sucker! - only transtitiv const. There will 
> always be funny discussion to read in the forum, etc.
>

Now you're starting to sound like superdan.

> So long, a thanks for all the fish!

Sorry we couldn't be the dynamic language you wanted us to be. Bye.