Maybe D is right about GC after all !

[Laeeth Isharc]

On Sunday, 24 December 2017 at 21:27:12 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
> On Sun, 2017-12-24 at 16:58 +0000, Laeeth Isharc via 
> Digitalmars-d wrote:
>> Programming languages are tools for solving problems, and 
>> people face different problems and they also have different 
>> capabilities and tastes, which means even for people facing 
>> identical problems, the right tool for the job may not be the 
>> same because they aren't identical as groups and as 
>> individuals.
>
> Thinking of a programming language as a domain specific 
> language for solving problems in a domain helps with this. 
> Along with can a language enable creation of a DSL for solving 
> my problems. Creating functions is creating a DSL in any 
> language.

That's an extremely odd way to conceive of D, IMO, like 
conceiving of a banana as being like an apple, only it tastes 
like a banana and has a different shape.

If a general purpose programming language is to be conceived of 
as a domain specific language, what's the difference between a 
true domain specific language and a regular programming language?

That's really the whole point about D.  It's an era where people 
start out assuming that using the right tool for the job means 
that one tool can't do two different kinds of job well.  But, as 
Walter has said elsewhere I think, in some cases that's because 
the tools people are used to using are limited, whereas in fact 
there's no need for that - just use one tool that's good at both. 
  It's going to be a struggle to recognise such a tool if you 
start with the presumption it cannot exist.  And talking about 
languages as identical with DSLs only encourages this 
misconception, I think.


>> How does prestige develop?  From tangible consequences 
>> produced by able and virtuous people acting together to create 
>> something. There's a long lead time on that one, but it's not 
>> something that can be rushed.
>
> And sales and marketing. Arguably C was the last language that 
> got traction based solely on technical benefit and tribalism. 
> All other languages with traction since have had serious 
> marketing behind them.

I don't think I suggested that tribalism in the everyday sense of 
the word is favourable to the adoption of a language.  But that 
aside, C is quite a big example, and I don't see that it has no 
relevance to the present, even though conditions are of course 
different.  Was Python adopted because of a big marketing budget? 
  If so, I didn't know that - who paid for it?  How about R?

I think you also need to consider consequences of beliefs if you 
are wrong and the choices available in circumstances (unless you 
can figure out how to create new choices).  You write as if 
adoption is flatlining.  It isn't - it's growing at a healthy 
pace, as best I can see.  Human perception doesn't deal very well 
with compound growth.  It's disappointing for a long time, and 
all of a sudden it's surprising.

It's by far best at this point to get across successful stories 
about the adoption of D to people who are already receptive to 
them because they have some problems that D might help with than 
to try to get people to listen to you who have no interest in 
listening.  Persuasion works when people are ready to move 
towards you.  You can't compel that.