Using D

[Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d]

On 7/11/2014 1:40 PM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 04:54:39PM +0000, Chris via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> [...]
>> I remember Java used to be "theeee" best thing ever. After years of
>> using it, however, I found out how restricted the language was / is.
>> Still, it's been a success, because people believed all the
>> propaganda. What matters to me is not so much the odd fancy feature,
>> it's how well the language performs in general purpose programming.
> [...]
>
> I remember how I was skeptical of Java from day 1. Call me a cynic, but
> everytime I hear something being overhyped, I immediately assign
> whatever it is being hyped about as a second class product, and regard
> it with suspicion.

I tend to be like that even for non-computer stuff too, viewing 
whatever's popular with skepticism. Once in a while it'll backfire and 
keep me away from something I later realize is actually pretty decent, 
but I've found *usually* it serves me well. But then, my tastes tend to 
be uncommon *anyway*, so maybe that's why it works for me ;)

> Same goes with cloud computing, which, as Nick likes
> to say, is just marketing propaganda for "the internet".
>

Yes!!

"Cloud" drives me crazy more than any other word! It's the hipster word 
for "Internet", and it's EVERYWHERE.

> When I finally got past the hype and tried out the language for myself,
> I found the same thing you did: it's totally straitjacketed, and shoves
> the OO idealogy down your throat even when it obviously doesn't fit. The
> infamous long-winded "class MyLousyApp { public static void main(blah
> blah blah) ... }" is a prime example of shoehorning something obviously
> non-OO into an OO paradigm, just because we want to.  Not to mention
> Java's verbosity, which is only tolerable with IDE support -- total
> fail, in my book. I mean, hello, we're talking about a *language*
> intended for *humans* to communicate with the computer? If we need
> *another* program to help us elucidate this communication, something's
> gone very, very wrong with the language. A language that needs a machine
> to help you write, is by definition a language for communication between
> *machines*, not between humans and machines.
>

While I agree with all of that, there are two things I've always had to 
give Java credit for: It's classes and module system are what originally 
taught me that C/C++ aren't ideal and...umm...have some notable downsides...

> That's not to say that Java, the language, (as opposed to the class
> library or the marketing hype) isn't a pretty good language. In fact,
> it's quite a beautiful language -- in the idealistic, ivory tower,
> detached-from-real-life sense of being a perfect specimen suitable for a
> museum piece. Its disconnect from the messy real world, unfortunately,
> makes it rather painful to use in real-life.

Yea, that's one of the things that drew me to D. It came around saying 
(quite literally) "pragmatic language design" at exactly the time I was 
noticing how much of a pain ideology-driven and minimalist languages can be.