Biggest Issue with D - Definition and Versioning

[Alex Rønne Petersen]

On 15-01-2012 21:57, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "Andrei Alexandrescu"<SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org>  wrote in message
> news:jetha2$2csv$1 at digitalmars.com...
>>
>> 2. We haven't identified game designers as a core market, and one that's
>> more important than e.g. general purpose programmers who need the like of
>> working qualifiers, multithreading, and shared libraries.
>>
>
> I have to strongly take issue with this one. Let's take a look at what D
> intends to be:
>
> A multi-paradigm, natively-compiled, systems language that's designed as a
> reimagined C++, and is better at high-level than C++, and goes every bit as
> low-level as C++.
>
> How the fuck does that *not* implicitly say "game dev" already?
>
> Hell, it's already *more* of a gamedev langauge than a "general purpose
> programmers" langauge anyway: General purpose programmers *already* have
> fucking billions of VM and interpreted langauges that most of them are
> perfectly happy with. What the hell do game devs have besides D? Umm,
> C++...*sort of* C# (which isn't nearly as good at gamedev as D
> anyway)...and, oh yea, that's it! If it weren't the the prospect of gamedev,
> I never would have even gotten into D in the first place.
>
> It doesn't matter if *you've* identified game dev as a market you care
> about: D *is already* a gamedev language. And gamedev is already an *ideal*
> audience for D to target.
>
> (And like other have mentioned: Derelict - a game oriented library - is one
> of the *oldest* still-alive D libs out there.)
>
>
.
And yet, D's situation on Windows, the main gaming platform, is less 
than ideal. If we're really going to cater to game devs, we need to fix 
the entire Windows situation long before adding SIMD, IMHO.

That being said, I do agree that D is a great language for game dev. 
It's really just the Windows tool chain that's in a rather bad state.

--
- Alex