Moving back to .NET

[Israel via Digitalmars-d]

On Sunday, 20 September 2015 at 17:32:53 UTC, Adam wrote:
> My experiences with D recently have not been fun.
>
> The language itself has a top notch feature rich set. The 
> implementation, excluding bugs, feels a bit boxy and old 
> school. .NET has a unified approach and everything seems to fit 
> together nicely and feels consistent. The abomination of dmd, 
> though, is it's error messages. Most of them are meaningless 
> and you have to dive down 2 or 3 levels of assumptions to 
> figure out what they mean. It's not too bad but because of the 
> poor tool set it makes it difficult to debug apps.
>
> Visual D, a mighty attempt to bring some sanity to D in 
> windows, is simply to unpolished to work well. It brings the 
> looks of Visual Studio but not the feel of how VS works so well 
> with .NET. I spend over an order of magnitude more time trying 
> to fix D bugs than I do in .NET. Unfortunately this makes it 
> infeasible to continue to use D.
>
> For example, I build a ~10k line app in under a week in .NET, 
> with gui and everything. In D I'm still working on getting the 
> libraries build. Even with all the power D has, what good is it 
> if you can't get off the starting line.
>
> Remember, no reason to have the sharpest sword if you can't 
> wield it.

The problem is that you seem to be accustomed to an IDE of which 
D is not tied to.
That would limit (as you put it) its portability. But at the same 
time you want a unified tool-set?

Ask any of the vim/emacs users here and they will tell you 
otherwise.