Note from a donor

[codephantom]

On Friday, 27 October 2017 at 19:44:49 UTC, Jerry wrote:
> On Friday, 27 October 2017 at 13:15:38 UTC, codephantom wrote:
>> The less the D language partakes in that stuff up.. the better 
>> D will be for it.
>
> This mentality is why D is pretty awful on Windows. It's bad 
> enough that DMD doesn't release a 64-bit version on Windows but 
> now you are advocating for the removal of the ability for it to 
> generate 64-bit binaries as well! Yah that won't bring you 10 
> steps back. Ideals are nice and all, but some people still need 
> to get shit done. This sort of mentality is hurting D, not 
> helping it.

Rubbish!

And get you facts straight!

Where did I advocate from the removal of the ability for D to 
generate 64-bit binaries?

64bit D on Windows, is a problem because of Windows.

The fact that D cannot disentangle itself from the monstrosity 
known as Visual Studio, is a problem of Visual Studio.

If you really want to get work done, then try wasting 10 hours of 
your time, trying to work out how to install VS, and all stuff 
that it depends on - you are even forced to upgrade your 
operating system too!

At a minimum, I had to download 3.5GB of VS build tools just so I 
could compile a 64 bit D program (and it took me almost a whole 
day to work out the correct process).

Is that a problem of D or VS?

Is is it problem that D should accept, and just impose on it's 
users?

Or should D find a better way?

Which is the worse mentality?

And VS destroys competition and imposes considerable and 
unacceptable requirements on its users. That is the only 
mentality you should be questioning.