Biggest Issue with D - Definition and Versioning

[deadalnix]

Le 16/01/2012 01:23, Andrei Alexandrescu a écrit :
> On 1/15/12 11:42 AM, Kiith-Sa wrote:
>> I'm interested in game development using D, so I'll post my opinion.
>>
>> I think the discussions here show how particularly specialized people
>> here are. I've seen some Manu's posts and it was clear that he is a
>> person
>> in gamedev who thinks most development is like gamedev and can't see
>> the bigger
>> picture. For a gamedev person, SIMD support is not simply a cool
>> feature, it's
>> a gamechanger. Just like const, ranges, D threading features and so
>> on. However,
>> his posts often show that he doesn't understand positions of other
>> people in other
>> areas, e.g. people here working on scientific computing, who are also
>> interested
>> in SIMD but their thinking of terms such as "vector" is completely
>> different.
>>
>> I think you're making the same mistake here - you have very little (or
>> no?)
>> idea about gamedev and aren't exposed to game programmers, so you just
>> assume
>> specific gamedev issues don't exist or are unimportant. I don't think
>> you get
>> much of exposure to game devs when evangelizing D either - you don't
>> evangelize
>> D in game companies.
> [snip]
>
> You are making a good point, and I'm glad you chimed in.
>
> I do have ties with the gaming community; I taught a course at ENDI and
> I am well acquainted with a few game developers. Also, at conferences
> and events gaming programmers are represented. Finally, game developers
> who are reading TDPL are likely to send me book feedback and questions
> in proportion to their representation. From where I stand, I can say
> there is more interest in D in other communities than in gaming.
>
> Clearly gamedev-specific issues do exist and are important. But that's
> not even remotely the point. Allow me to explain.
>
> Say we identified gaming programmers as an important community to
> address. If that happened, we would have done a /lot/ of things
> differently, and a ton of them before SIMD. That means focus on
> Windows64, graphic accelerators, and gaming CPUs. To claim that work on
> SIMD is good because it's good for gamers is to reverse engineer a
> rationalization after the fact. And the fact is - Walter has had the
> gusto to implement SIMD now. Technically, that's great. For gamers,
> that's an interesting development. Organizationally, that's a poor
> statement.
>
> Again: if D is a hobby we have, all's great. Otherwise, we must show
> people that we are serious about finishing the core language
> implementation, that we make promises that we are able to keep, and that
> we make plans that we follow even in the broadest strokes. If we want to
> play with the big boys, we need to change the way we approach planning
> and organization quite drastically.
>
>
> Andrei

To add more to the point, game develloper also face the core language. 
const or even worse shared issues are very important to game devellopers 
(you need a good threading support to code a game engine that exploit 
modern CPU, and to not choke on IO). So core languages feature bugs also 
affect game devellopers.