Biggest Issue with D - Definition and Versioning

[Walter Bright]

On 1/18/2012 12:30 PM, deadalnix wrote:
> Switching has a cost in itself. To trigger change, you don't need to provide
> something more, but that is not enough. You need to provide enough to make the
> benefit of switching bigger than the cost that comes with swithing.
>
> And that is only if you are rationnal. If you consider basic psychology, you'll
> notice that effect like cognitive dissonance and you'll notice that things are
> even worse. This is not fair, I do agree, but this is the world we live in.

I fully understand that and agree with it. That is why I am often skeptical of 
the reason given for not switching - my experience is that it is likely not the 
real reason. It takes some digging and insight to get at the real reason.

Not understanding the real reasons leads us to waste effort solving the wrong 
problems.


> As a last point, I'll mention that using D has obvious drawbacks : lack of
> documentation, lack of support, not that many exemple, compiler bugs, limited
> IDE integration, limited toolchain, etc . . . So this is rationnal to choose
> another language if both have the needed feature.

Those are drawbacks, indeed, but sometimes are given as rationalizations for 
what might be other reasons entirely.

For example, let's assume we're talking to an expert Java developer. He has 
spent the last 10 years becoming an expert in every detail of Java. He's at the 
top of the Java community, and at the top of his game. Is he going to switch to 
D? Pretty unlikely, as now he'd be discarding a big chunk of that hard-won, 
valuable expertise. Is he going to give that as the reason for not switching? 
Not a chance.

(Andrei is a remarkable exception.)

We can beat ourselves to a bloody pulp trying to entice them to switch, or we 
can engage more fertile ground, which are the newer developers who haven't set 
their careers in concrete yet. And this is the way it always is for new 
technology adoption.