An idea for commercial support for D
Joakim via Digitalmars-d
digitalmars-d at puremagic.com
Sun Jan 11 21:02:35 PST 2015
On Sunday, 11 January 2015 at 19:27:15 UTC, Iain Buclaw via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On 11 January 2015 at 16:23, Joakim via Digitalmars-d
> <digitalmars-d at puremagic.com> wrote:
>> On Sunday, 11 January 2015 at 16:13:01 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
>>>>
>>>> There are very few "monopolies" in software, essentially
>>>> none nowadays.
>>>
>>>
>>> :D :D :D :D :D
>>>
>>> I have not laughed so hard for quite a while. Modern IT
>>> industry is
>>> absolutely dominated by monopolies / oligopolies.
>>>
>>> Hard to reason with you if this is what you see.
>>
>>
>> You should really try to keep up to date with recent market
>> share stats:
>>
>> http://www.businessinsider.in/In-Case-You-Dont-Appreciate-How-Fast-The-Windows-Monopoly-Is-Getting-Destroyed-/articleshow/21123434.cms
>
> Why should Monopoly automatically mean Microsoft? ;-)
It doesn't, it's just the only company he mentioned and the one
most think of. If you have another in mind, feel free to mention
it.
On Monday, 12 January 2015 at 04:17:11 UTC, Zach the Mystic wrote:
> On Sunday, 11 January 2015 at 16:02:59 UTC, Joakim wrote:
>> You may be right that nobody else in the _D_ community sees
>> the value, but engineers are notorious for being ignorant of
>> business and economics, so nothing unusual if that's the case.
>
> Yeah, it seems to be a big deal. D may end up needing what it
> doesn't appear to have: some business genius to go along with
> its language design prowess. The "switching costs" are far too
> high right now. Even the ideal programming language could only
> be so much better than what already exists.
I don't know about "genius," simply a small to mid-sized company
like Embarcadero that's willing to invest into putting 10-20 paid
devs on producing and selling a polished compiler/runtime/stdlib
would do.
I disagree that the ideal programming language would "only be so
much better:" we can do a _lot_ better than C++ and all its
legacy issues. D certainly makes a stab at it, but is missing
good commercial implementations like C++ has.
> I'm not a marketing expert (well, perhaps ipso facto), but I
> think that in order to prosper in the current climate D needs a
> better brand. "Modern convenience. Modeling power. Native
> efficiency."... isn't good enough. Not to disparage the effort
> that went into creating that slogan, but for one thing, it's
> not even honest, insofar as D does not yet provide modern
> convenience, as Manu Evans has so dishearteningly pointed out.
> (It's becoming painfully obvious that convenience is absolutely
> not about language - it's about ecosystem, and D simply doesn't
> have that yet.)
I don't have a problem with the brand. D is convenient enough
for me in terms of features, though I certainly don't push it as
far as Manu does. As for the library ecosystem, that's always a
slog to bootstrap for any new language.
> The most important thing about a brand is that you know who you
> are. D still doesn't know what it is yet, and so it hasn't
> found the need to create a brand that matches that identity.
I'd argue that D knows what it is by now, but doesn't know how to
get it done, ie a volunteer project won't make any headway
against C++.
>> In any case, D's license allows it, so I'm sure somebody will
>> try out a hybrid model with a D compiler someday, or D will be
>> obsoleted by a language that does.
>
> I'm not managing a huge codebase, so I have nothing to lose by
> sticking with D!
Nor am I, I have no problem tinkering with a hobby language like
D in my spare time.
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list