The Next Big Language

[Denis Koroskin]

On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 20:25:52 +0400, Fawzi Mohamed <fawzi at gmx.ch> wrote:

>
> On 18-ott-10, at 18:14, Denis Koroskin wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 19:07:38 +0400, Don <nospam at nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Jeff Nowakowski wrote:
>>>> On 10/18/2010 04:59 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Java was big long before it was open-sourced, and C# is big in spite  
>>>>> of the fact
>>>>> that its main compiler isn't open source and the one that is (Mono)  
>>>>> is so far
>>>>> behind the main one that many people totally discount it.
>>>> Java and C# were pushed by big companies. Pretty much any other  
>>>> popular language these days is open source.
>>>>
>>>>> I really don't understand the complaints about the lack of an open  
>>>>> source
>>>>> compiler for D, but then again, I've always been pro-open source and  
>>>>> anti-free
>>>>> software (I think that the FSF is nuts, personally), so that may be  
>>>>> why.
>>>> I really don't understand why you say you don't understand. You list  
>>>> the reasons why open source is good. Not everybody has the luxury of  
>>>> plopping down a $1000 for a compiler. People don't want vendor  
>>>> lock-in. Open source is a popular movement, and you say you're  
>>>> pro-open source, and you don't understand why D gets knocked for not  
>>>> being so?
>>>
>>> The problem is that D is getting attacked _as if it were closed  
>>> source_, which is completely untrue! The source code for ALL D  
>>> compilers is freely available at no charge. closed source != !open.
>>>
>>> There are many, very strong disadvantages of closed source vs Open  
>>> Source, but most don't apply to D.
>>>
>>> I see only two disadvantages with the DMD backend vs Open Source:
>>> (1) we carry the risk that something happens to Walter;
>>> (2) DMD cannot be included in Linux distributions.
>>>
>>> But since the front-end is GPLed, these apply only to the backend.
>>>
>>> It really seems to be a philosophical objection rather than a  
>>> practical one. Or else based on a misunderstanding.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Those who complain about dmd not being open-sourced are those who  
>> didn't try programming in D. Those who tried complain about dmd bugs.
>>
>> We've just tried programming with a friend in pair in D, and after  
>> spending about an hour trying to figure out the program misbehavior we  
>> understood it was a dmd codegen bug (I'll submit a report shortly). He  
>> was very angry and said "After so many years being in development this  
>> is still a b.s. I will never touch this language again". I had nothing  
>> to say other than I'll submit a bug-report and it will hopefully get  
>> fixed.
>
> D2 I imagine :(, with D1 I had my share of ugly bugs, but normally  
> things work.
>
> Fawzi
>

Yes, D2, but just because D1 is capable of dynamic closures. Otherwise I'd  
say they are about the same bug-wise. At least most of the bugs I came  
across usually apply to both.
Usually there is a trivial workaround, but one needs to be experienced  
enough to find and apply it, and the perception it leaves to newcomers is  
that it is way too early to use dmd, especially in production.

Btw, here is the report: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5071