Move VisualD to github/d-programming-language ?

[Ramon]

On Monday, 9 September 2013 at 08:29:44 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
> ...
> If Windows and (C or C++ or C# or F# or Python) then 
> VisualStudio.
> If Windows and Java then (Eclipse of IntelliJ IDEA)


I understand the point about Visual$. While I myself hardly know 
it, very many (quite possibly the majority) of programmers on 
Windoze use it and seem to be quite happy with it. That's reason 
enough for me to accept it.

This, however, is (to me) the really interesting point

> So if D is to compete with C++ on Windows, a D plugin for 
> Visual Studio
> has to be in place and enjoyably usable.

Is it? Why compete? The only way to attracts large numbers of C++ 
developers is to become more and more like C++ (incl. of course, 
massive amounts of libraries and tools) and to end up as some 
kind of C+++.

Python is similar to - nothing (commonly used) - and yet it grew 
wildly. There are so many to complain about Python's weird 
indentation syntax. And yet they come and use it. Because it 
promises something tangible and it delivers. Because there is 
"the Python way". Because there excellent docs. And because there 
is no real competitor.
Had van Rossum tried to please the perl crowd, he might have 
attracted some more and quicker but today Python would be a small 
niche thingy nobody'd care much about.

I feel we should largely ignore C++. I feel that D is grossly 
inconsequent in a) - very smartly - aiming to be what C++ wanted 
to be and b) - not at all smartly - trying to please the C++ 
crowd and to mimick C++ up to the point of at least seriously 
considering mimicking leper and plague of C++, too.

D already *is* what C++ wanted to be, namely a more modern C with 
OO. D shouldn't measure itself against C++ but rather against 
what C++ wanted to be.

And there is another immensely important factor: reliability and 
safety.

This world gets ever more dependent on software - and software is 
ever more recognized as unreliable and insecure; hell, there is 
even an industry living from that (anti virus, anti-malware, etc, 
etc).

THAT's the sweet spot. To be what C++ wanted to be - plus - a 
strong focus on reliability and safety.

The Ada people are not stupid. There is a good reason for them to 
ponder a year or longer over a new keyword. Bertrand Meyer may 
have it implemented in a way that looks strange to many but that 
man isn't stupid at all. The lesson to learn from those two 
languages known for reliability? Have a tight definition and 
think long and hard before you make the slightest changes. And 
*always* keep your "guiding principles" in mind.


A+ -R