Is D still alive?

[Walter Bright]

retard wrote:
> The fact that the final specification and design rationale of D is 
> undocumented and in Walter's head means that no other person can sell 
> that kind of deep enterprise support because it's not clear how the 
> language should work.

Oh rubbish. C++ was highly successful in the enterprise for 15 years before it 
got a formal specification.


> The rest of us can only guess. It also means that 
> the more Walter spends time on enterprise support, the less he has time 
> to work on D. The best for D might be to not buy any support at all. All 
> the conferences and events are just distracting D's development.

More nonsense. Supporting users, etc., keeps me current on what the real 
problems and needs are.


> I think the same applies to Phobos 2.. only Andrei knows the design well 
> enough and knows how it's going to change in the future. No matter how 
> much time one spends studying D or the ecosystem or how D is used in the 
> enterprise world, one simply can't obtain any reasonable level of 
> knowledge to become a "certified" authority in this community.

Official "certs" in the software biz are bullsh*t. I've never seen much of any 
correspondence between certs and competency.


> About the enterprise support... I haven't seen any material from Walter 
> targeting professional D developers, only advertisements for people who 
> have never used D. Maybe the hardcore stuff isn't publicly available.

If you mean slick brochures and Tom Hopkins trained pitches, no, that's not what 
I do. I help people who ask for services.