Why Ruby?

[so]

On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 02:51:28 +0200, Caligo <iteronvexor at gmail.com> wrote:

> People have indeed designed and implemented very big software systems  
> using
> "one of those so called not so complex languages".

Why don't you name one?
I obviously wasn't clear enough with "big software".
I don't know of any serious OS, game, <insert anything but text  
processing> written in anything except C/C++ (both complex languages).

> What people have not done is write anything meaningful of any size in D.
> The main reason for that is that, after so many years, there is still no
> decent D compiler, nothing near GCC quality, to be found.  For such a
> complex language as D, there are sure too many compilers and "standard"
> libraries, none of which are stable, up-to-date, or usable enough.  GCC  
> is
> the gold standard (for openness, quality, and user-base), and it seems D
> won't make it in till 2012.  So, we're still years away from the "big D
> software".  According to Ohloh, there is currently a total of 16 million
> lines of code written in D.  Compare that to 70 million for Ruby, and 160
> million for Python.  And that's only for open source projects that Ohloh
> keeps track of.  The count is in billions for C/C++.
>
> What I don't understand is this: how is it that Walter was able to  
> implement
> C++ all on his own from scratch, and yet D is having so many issues?  How
> complex is D really?

I completely agree with you, Walter is a superman.
But i guess he is not super enough, he couldn't even singlehandedly solve  
every programming issue known to man for last 50 years.

-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/