Lost a new commercial user this week :(

[Mengu via Digitalmars-d]

On Wednesday, 17 December 2014 at 09:05:58 UTC, Manu via 
Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On 16 December 2014 at 00:04, Kagamin via Digitalmars-d
> <digitalmars-d at puremagic.com> wrote:
>> On Sunday, 14 December 2014 at 08:37:36 UTC, Manu via 
>> Digitalmars-d wrote:
>>>
>>> They then made HUGE noises about the quality of 
>>> documentation. The
>>> prevailing opinion was that the D docs, in the eyes of a
>>> not-a-D-expert, are basically unreadable to them. The 
>>> formatting
>>> didn't help, there's a lot of noise and a lack of structure 
>>> in the
>>> documentation's presentation that makes it hard to see the 
>>> information
>>> through the layout and noise. As senior software engineers, 
>>> they
>>> basically expected that they should be able to read and 
>>> understand the
>>> docs, even if they don't really know the language, after all, 
>>> "what is
>>> the point of documentation if not to teach the language..."
>>> I tend to agree, I find that I can learn most languages to a 
>>> basic
>>> level by skimming the docs, but the D docs are an anomaly in 
>>> this way;
>>> it seems you have to already know D to be able to understand 
>>> it
>>> effectively. They didn't know javascript either, but skimming 
>>> the
>>> node.js docs they got the job done in an hour or so, after 
>>> having
>>> wasted *2 days* trying to force their way through the various
>>> frictions presented but their initial experience with D.
>>
>>
>> Comparing node.js to D? You probably speak about vibe, not D?
>
> The majority of hours spent were not really related to vibe.d 
> so much
> as trying to wrangle the tooling, debugging crashes, and 
> understand
> the docs to get some very basic things done.
> These are 'D' experience if you ask me.

very well said. it's not about just the environment, the language 
or phobos. it is about the experience that we provide to a new 
comer to D.

i remember walter said "build it and they will come is a lie." 
well, how about it "give a better experience and they will come?"

>
>
>>> One of the take-away quotes I think, was "D seems to be a 
>>> language for
>>> people who actively want to go and look for it, and take the 
>>> time to
>>> learn it. That's never going to be a commercial success."
>>
>>
>> O_O Huh? Your team really didn't learn C++?
>
> We didn't 'learn' javascript, or python, or html, or whatever 
> else you
> pick up on the job.
> The investment in learning 'programming' is decades behind us, 
> and I
> think it's a reasonable expectation that a language present 
> itself in
> such a way that it's intuitive and easy to get some basic things
> going.
> Leveraging small example snippets from the docs, etc. D is very 
> easy
> for a C/C++ programmer, but the docs don't make it appear that 
> way,
> and they give the wrong impression.
> The overpowering presence of templates in the docs give a first
> impression that reminds people of everything that's wrong with 
> C++,
> which I suspect most C++ programmers looking into D are actively
> trying to escape!
>
> There simply can't be friction on step 1! There can be friction 
> on
> step 4 or 5 when you've already made some minor achievements, 
> and have
> a good few hours invested.
> Any friction on step 1 or 2 will lead to an almost immediate 
> rejection.

i am a python, ruby and groovy developer. D was very easy also 
for a programmer like me. every time i come back, i find comfort 
at D. honestly, D is python on stereoids for me. till i look at 
the docs and see all those things that doesn't mean anything at 
first sight. then i spend some time to understand the signatures, 
the bodies.

maybe, generated docs are not a good idea and hand-written, more 
explanatory docs are better for d?