Moving back to .NET

[Maxim Fomin via Digitalmars-d]

On Tuesday, 22 September 2015 at 06:03:25 UTC, Laeeth Isharc 
wrote:
> On Monday, 21 September 2015 at 19:15:28 UTC, Maxim Fomin wrote:
>
>> OK, the frustration is understandable. D is good enough to 
>> impress in short-run but has problems damaging itself in the 
>> long run. This leads to impression -> frustration cycle.
>
> Well, that may or may not be true.  But someone who finds the 
> error messages offputting isn't a good exemplar of putative 
> deficiencies that show up in the long run, because these are 
> part of the initial learning curve and after a year or two or 
> experience it's really unlikely to be a main factor in 
> determining choice of framework.  Whereas it's understandable 
> that in the beginning it can be a big source of frustration.

I do not consider error messages as long run issue (it is 
discussed in the thread and I didn't mentioned it, so it might 
caused impression that I agree with complains about error 
messages).

> And if you leave the Microsoft ecosystem, I am not sure that D 
> fares so badly in relation to a certain C family language that 
> has had a big influence.

If Microsoft ecosystem is left out then my opinion regarding 
comparison with Microsoft system is obviously irrelevant. 
Comparing with other languages I found D is decently good.

>
> He didn't say how long he had been using D for, but as others 
> point out one underestimates how much one knows in relation to 
> existing languages, and forgets that it is a degree of work 
> over months and years to learn something new...

I always could not understand complaints regarding D hard 
learning curve for anyone with C/C++/C# background.

>
>> Either you need portability and you care what Mono does, or 
>> you don't.
> Commercial decisions are often a matter of tradeoffs.  Eg for 
> internal enterprise software you might find it valuable to be 
> able to run on both linux and windows, but you can always make 
> it a service on windows if linux is too much trouble.

Sounds like 'lazy' portability: if app is portable - than good, 
if not - ok, we can leave with it:)