Could D have fit Microsoft's needs?

Aphex Aphex at
Tue Jul 23 17:58:20 UTC 2019

On Monday, 22 July 2019 at 23:16:26 UTC, Margo wrote:
> On Sunday, 21 July 2019 at 00:22:11 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:

> Any talk about code refactoring, library splitting, etc is a 
> wast of hot air. Again, sorry to say this but its like looking 
> at a Echo Chamber whenever i past by here.

It is exactly that... You are right in your analysis and this is 
why D will never get anywhere. It's past it's prime. It will 
continue going down the same path that hasn't worked. It is 
highly unlikely that real change will come because of what you 
have stated. You have the cult leaders and the cult followers. 
The followers simply parrot what the leaders say in trying to 
gain favorable position but ultimately reinforcing the failed 
mentalities of the leaders, who actually need to be challenged 
because they ultimately will lead the cult astray. It's how all 
things go with humans. One will always be successful at sometime 
when they only look at the pro's... Real progress is made in 
turning the weaknesses into strengths.

Only thing I'd disagree with you is I'd give D's library an F 
though. It's a terrible trash heap of organization. While it may 
contain a useful things, the way it is organized and the 
nomenclature is just moronic. It's obvious that it was cobbled 
together and one pays the price when they use it. It may have 
quite a lot of functionality but the way it is presented is a 

The problem with the leaders, generally, is that they are myopic. 
They want to focus on the successes and ignore the failures. This 
is what most humans do. They want to feel good about the 
accomplishments so they can feel good about themselves. The ones 
that generally are the most successful are the people who are 
never happy.... they keep pushing and pushing and pushing and 
eventually they have made so much progress that the result is a 
cohesive. One see's this not just in programming but in 
everything. Great musicians are no different. They are the ones 
who were never satisfied with what they were good at.  There are 
many musicians in the world who have amazing talent and will 
never get anywhere... and we always see these kids who are 
amazing yet never turn out to be squat because at some point they 
fail to work on their weaknesses(which may not even be musical).

D simply does not have the leadership to take it where everyone 
wants to go. What it boils down to is this: Walter is happy with 
where D is at. Many of the followers are happy where D is 
at(although you'll notice over time the ones who have invested in 
D tend to see the flaws and become disgruntled or leave(this is 
typical behavior since the veil of truth reveals the flaws with 
time))... and so D will stay where it is at. This is why I use D 
for nothing new. I'm not going to waste any time with it. It's 
already a very difficult ecosystem to use compared to other 
languages and, to be honest, it really doesn't offer anything 
that can't be done anywhere else. It's just nice to have as a 
convenience for certain problems, but when everything else is 
inconveniencing around it, it becomes counter productive.

With D I've become the most unproductive programmer I have ever 
been while thinking I've become the most productive... that is D 
in a nutshell for me and it's not an exaggeration. It's not the 
language that is the problem either.

More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list