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

Arjan arjan at ask.me.to
Sat Apr 20 08:56:59 UTC 2019


On Saturday, 20 April 2019 at 06:48:31 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 20, 2019 at 06:34:17AM +0000, JN via Digitalmars-d 
> wrote:
>> On Friday, 19 April 2019 at 21:37:14 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
>> > Sorry, I find this statement outright ridiculous.  In the

Me too.

Looking back +20 years, the heydays of OO and C/C++ there were a 
multitude of compilers available:
- Microsoft
- Borland
- Zortech/Symantec
- Watcom
- CodeWarrior
- IBM VisualAge
- Kuck & Associates, Inc
- Comeau
- HP aC++
- GCC
- etc etc etc

The source-code was absolutely not portable between them! Why 
not? STL was one big havoc creating issue. There were many 
differentiating implementations, so much there was even a 
commercial software suite to test them for conformance!

These must have really killed the C++ language right? NO:

C++ is kicking pythons but in popularity rise last year:
https://www.techrepublic.com/article/most-popular-programming-languages-c-knocks-python-out-of-top-three/

>
> But what I don't understand is how having multiple compilers 
> for a language is construed to be a bad thing.  Back in the 
> day, it was considered a sign of language maturity that 
> multiple compiler implementers would even want to bother to 
> produce their own compilers for your language.  It was when 
> nobody else cared enough to write their own compilers for your 
> language, that was a sign that you've failed to become 
> relevant.  To see the opposite being argued just boggles my 
> mind.

Mine too.


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list