Moving back to .NET

[John Colvin via Digitalmars-d]

On Tuesday, 29 September 2015 at 11:40:20 UTC, Ola Fosheim 
Grøstad wrote:
> On Tuesday, 29 September 2015 at 09:02:13 UTC, John Colvin 
> wrote:
>> actually use the product. If you can put your theoretical mind 
>> on hold for a few days and actually immerse yourself in the 
>> language and its idioms for practical use*, you'd see that D 
>> has a large feature-overlap with to up-to-date C++, but often 
>> feels very different in practice.
>
> There is nothing theoretical about this, I am only concerned 
> about the language, not the standard library. The same with C++.
>
> One usually don't judge a system level language based on its 
> libraries. System level usage of the same system level language 
> can be very different because people use different core 
> libraries. So there is essentially no reason to complain about 
> D's libraries.
>
> If you look for system level programming you also essentially 
> agree to writing the libraries you need or create bindings to 
> whatever system you intend to build for.  I am not interested 
> in Phobos, I am not fond of it and I don't focus on it since I 
> don't have to use it. I am interested in the language/runtime, 
> not libraries which I understand that I have to do on my own.

Ok, that's fine, but your comments don't generally come with a 
"this observation is limited to very bare-bones code, beyond 
which I am not interested to think about" caveat, the stuff your 
saying is often very wide-ranging. Also, even for the low-level 
work that you specialise in, practice can lead to insights.