Why aren't you using D at work?

[via Digitalmars-d]

On Friday, 29 May 2015 at 14:22:58 UTC, Chris wrote:
> However, for a constantly growing long-term code base, D is my 
> language of choice. It's clean (i.e. maintainable), flexible 
> (many ways to tackle new problems), easily unit-testable and, 
> of course, compiles to native machine code. It also interfaces 
> to C(++) which is very important.

Yes, C++ interfacing could prove important, if it can cover >95% 
of C++ library interfaces.

Are you using D for a constantly growing long-term code base, or 
planning to?

>> There is no way a generic solution can beat a tailored 
>> solution when it comes to abstract datatypes and memory 
>> management, so having lots of options in a standard library 
>> sounds useful.

Ugh, I said the opposite of what I meant. I don't think having 
lots of allocation options in a standard library sounds all that 
useful, since I will most likely roll my own when hitting a 
serious performance problem. Rolling your own is often the same 
amount of work as "searching for  a narrow solution" unless you 
are doing something really complicated.

I think many standard libraries could be cut down to the most 
generally useful functionality. In C++ I use std::array or my own 
data structures, I only occasionally use std::vector… In Python I 
use no more than 5% of the standard library. Generally useful 
solutions (like comprehensions) beats narrow solutions 99% of the 
time, because when you need something narrow then the pre-canned 
narrow solutions often require hacks to serve the purpose (the 
wrong kind of narrowness or "fits perfectly except it doesn't 
work when…X…").