The Next Big Language

[Lutger]

Don 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.

How is 2) philosophical? If the backend would have been open sourced, dmd 
would have been included in many linux distro's by now. So far it is 
distributed by none. This is a pragmatic issue, it means less exposure and 
less developers for D.