Calypso and the future of D

[Abdulhaq via Digitalmars-d]

On Friday, 23 January 2015 at 11:26:07 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 1/23/2015 3:22 AM, Abdulhaq wrote:
>> On Friday, 23 January 2015 at 10:53:47 UTC, Walter Bright 
>> wrote:
>>> Yes, it's tied to clang++. It may not even work on all the 
>>> platforms we
>>> support. But that's no matter for now.
>>
>> When you say "for now", does that imply that at some time in 
>> the future it may
>> matter, in which case isn't it better to get these issues 
>> thrashed out now? Is
>> this a potential dead end?
>>
>
> We don't need a perfect solution immediately. We do need a 
> solution that's better than nothing, we can build on that as 
> required.

I actually agree (though I am nowhere near as well informed as 
most others on this forum) that Calypso is the way to go, however 
ISTM there are large implications that go with that decision. The 
infrastructure that Calyspo depends on is not something, IMO, 
that you "can build on as required" to address missing platforms, 
for instance. Gazing into my crystal ball I'd say that 5 years 
down the road there will be many D libraries with significant 
dependencies on C++ (Calypso bound) to the extent that the great 
unwashed will view D as a language that is only practicable on 
platforms supported by clang++. For me that is fine, but I 
suspect not fine for others. For instance, I would view Qt and 
VTK as key bindings. Others will want numeric libraries etc. etc..

I should also point out that D doesn't have 'nothing' in terms of 
alternatives, there exist other more traditional binding-based 
technologies that could flourish with 'official' support. Since I 
have a hand in one of those I should point out that I think 
Calypso, if it does what I think it does, will work better in 
terms of integration, speed etc. and from my personal perspective 
is therefore better. My goal is to have Qt, VTK, linear algebra, 
matrices etc., available for D (linux and Windows) and I'm not 
fussed exactly how it is done.