Has D failed? ( unpopular opinion but I think yes )

[Jon Degenhardt]

On Sunday, 14 April 2019 at 09:42:01 UTC, Laeeth Isharc wrote:
> It's true that there's a high barrier to entry in the beginning 
> with D - much better now, but if you are put off by discomfort 
> and needing to figure things out for yourself then it's going 
> to be quite a tough experience.  D doesn't place a high value 
> on being accessible and if that's what is important then maybe 
> somewhere else would be a better fit.

Interesting. This appears to be a common sentiment, but it's 
opposite of mine and many other folks I talk to. I've programmed 
in a number of languages, and I'd say that Python is easier to 
get started in, but that most other languages are materially 
harder.

Might be useful to understand why some people find D easy and 
others find it hard. It could be related to past programming 
experience, but also might be related to the types of tasks being 
performed, the way people learn, or differences in approach to 
programming. (e.g. Perhaps early success or not is being 
determined by role the ecosystem plays in initial tasks chosen or 
programming approach used.) This is a material topic because 
programming model simplicity is, or should be, a strength of D.

> Yes - the tolerance for experimentation is an important 
> question.
>  In firms where there isn't much of a tolerance for 
> experimenting and for some of those experiments to fail then 
> it's probably not the right environment to use D.  But I think 
> the more interesting places to work are quite different.

The computing landscape is changing rapidly, and there are many 
technologies companies need to consider experimental investments 
in, not just programming languages. In effect, when it comes to 
investments in advanced/experimental technology a company might 
choose to make, programming languages are competing with many 
other technologies, not just other programming languages.