Move VisualD to github/d-programming-language ?

[Russel Winder]

On Mon, 2013-09-09 at 11:07 +0200, Ramon wrote:
[…]
> 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+++.

The "space of the game" is native code applications. The players
currently are Fortran, C, C++, D, Go, Rust, Haskell, OCaml. There are
others but they are second division rather than first division. Thus,
almost by definition D is competing with C++ for use statistics.

> 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.

I agree, currently, and quite bizarrely, Python is unique amongst
programming languages in that it is seen as the natural partner of
native code components.

> 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.

Python and Perl did compete but they did so head on. It was a
philosophical "head on" so compromise was never an issue!

> 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.

C++11 has revitalized C++ in ways that are only just showing themselves.
This is a threat to D gaining traction. I am confident D can win the
battle for the hearts and minds of native code programmers over C++, but
it remains a "head to head" and C++ is established and accepted. D is
the newcomer and has to dislodge entrenched position.

There will be an interesting analogy with Java 8 in JVM land.

> 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.

Ada and Eiffel are niche languages, Eiffel more so than Ada. Whether
good, bad, or doesn't matter this is the case: they are languages used
in a very small domain, and even there C++ is allowed.

-- 
Russel.
=============================================================================
Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder at ekiga.net
41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: russel at winder.org.uk
London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20130909/bd62a32d/attachment.pgp>