Is D still alive?

[retard]

Fri, 28 Jan 2011 10:14:04 -0500, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:

> On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 04:59:18 -0500, retard <re at tard.com.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> Wed, 26 Jan 2011 15:35:19 -0500, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>>
>>> I'd suggest to anyone looking to use D for something really big to try
>>> and "prove" out how well D will perform for you by coding up bits of
>>> your whole project that you think will be needed.  Hopefully, you can
>>> do everything without hitting a mercy bug and then you can write your
>>> full project in it.
>>
>> I think this reveals a lot about D. You still need to prove things. Or
>> maybe the community members in general aren't very good developers;
>> they can't see the potential of this language. The fact is, no matter
>> what language you choose, if it isn't a complete joke, you can finish
>> the project. (I'm assuming the community members here won't be writing
>> any massive projects which are not possible to do in C++ or PHP or
>> Java.)
> 
> I fully see the potential of the language, but I've also experienced
> that a one (or two or three) man compiler team does not fix bugs on *my*
> schedule.  I can't buy "enterprise" support, so any bugs I may hit, I'm
> just going to have to wait for Walter and Co. to get around to them. 
> Not a problem for me, because I'm not developing with D professionally.

I agree.
 
> But if I was going to base a software company on D, I'd be very nervous
> at this prospect.

Exactly.

> 
> I think as D matures
> and hopefully gets more enterprise support, these problems will be
> history.

This is the classic chicken or the egg problem. I'm not trying to be 
unnecessarily mean. Enterprise support is something you desperately need. 
Consider dsource, wiki4d, d's bugzilla etc. It's amazing how much 3rd 
party money and effort affects the development. Luckily many things are 
also free nowadays such as github.

> 
>> I don't see any need to prove how well Haskell works. Even though it's
>> a "avoid success at all costs" experimental research language. It just
>> works. I mean to the extent that I'm willing to go with these silly
>> test projects that try to prove something.
> 
> The statements I made are not a property of D, they are a property of
> the lack of backing/maturity.  I'm sure when Haskell was at the same
> maturity stage as D, and if it had no financial backing/support
> contracts, it would be just as much of a gamble.

But Haskell developers have uninterruptedly received funding during the 
years.

> You seem to think that D is inherently flawed because of D, but it's
> simply too young for some tasks.  It's rapidly getting older, and I
> think in a year or two it will be mature enough for most projects.

I've heard this before. I've also heard the 64-bit port and many other 
things are done in a year/month or two. The fact is, you're overly 
optimistic and these are all bullshit. When I come back here in a year or 
two, I have full justification to laugh at your stupid claims.