The Next Big Language

[Walter Bright]

Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> 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 think I do.

The legitimate reasons:

1. If companies are going to bet their code investment on a language, they don't 
want to be left high and dry if the company with the closed source compiler goes 
bust. Yes, a company I used to work for (Data I/O) got shafted this way. Open 
source means they can get the source code if they have to to keep it going.

2. Open source implies a community that will support it, not a profit-seeking 
company, hence more likely that the language will be supported for the benefit 
of that community, and it will be more likely to survive various failures in 
support.

3. Open source implies free. Everybody likes free.

4. Some like to delve into the source code to figure out how things work.

5. With some it's a political thing.


The not so legitimate reasons:

1. People who won't use D for an irrational or unflattering reason. They'll 
search about for some other reason that is publicly acceptable. Any reason will 
do. You can tell them by if you resolve that reason, they just find another one. 
Resolve that, they find another one. Etc.

2. They're trolls. Any successful product will attract these.