Indicators and traction…

[Chris via Digitalmars-d]

On Wednesday, 23 September 2015 at 23:00:29 UTC, Laeeth Isharc 
wrote:
> On Wednesday, 23 September 2015 at 16:22:35 UTC, Joakim wrote:
>>
>> To break out to an early majority, D will have to prove 
>> itself, ie the innovators and early adopters have to show 
>> empirically that it is working better for them and allowing 
>> them to do more.
>
> I think you are spot on.

I agree. Conventional marketing won't get us far at this stage.

[snip - to which I agree]

> The naysayers are irrelevant, because you will always have 
> people that will tell you you are going to fail, and most 
> likely doing what they say you should do won't actually change 
> their minds.  I can understand how tiring it is to deal with 
> error messages (I was talking about this to someone the other 
> day), but mostly it's easier with time, and someone that 
> doesn't persist very long unlikely would be a core customer at 
> this particular stage of development.  One's priorities can't 
> be set by who complains loudest.

Thank you. Nicely put. Mind you, a lot of complaints are not 
related to the language itself (as others have said), but are 
secondary issues like IDEs 
(one-click-debug-compile-run-deploy-go-for-coffee-magic) and 
libraries, which are logically a step you take _after_ a language 
has been created. And it is true, doing what people tell you to 
do won't necessarily change their minds. They will find something 
else to complain about - like those nasty neighbors that tell you 
to cut the grass, then to trim the hedges, then to sweep the 
footpath etc. Let the grass grow!

> When it takes a very smart friend of mine at a big wall street 
> house known for being not bad in technology an hour to run an 
> analysis that takes me a few minutes using dmd debug and 
> without bothering to optimize and it took me a few hours to 
> write and having to wait for results is holding back his 
> strategy (20% of it is based on this, which he copied from me 
> after Deutsche Bank sneakily wrote up a white paper on it) - I 
> think I can say that D has been a smart choice for me so far.  
> Probably others will find that in time, but humans take time to 
> respond to changed conditions.  There's an extensive literature 
> on organisational architecture - see Brynjolfsson's work.

These things do make a difference. At least for the Python crowd. 
But be prepared that people might attack you saying that with C++ 
it would be 10-20% faster than D, because D has GC blah blah blah.

The amount of random criticism that is thrown at D, confirms, 
imo, that it is really good, else people wouldn't bother to 
attack it so passionately. Only really good creations are 
attacked with a passion - be it in art or technology.