my demise

[Fredrik Olsson]

Kyle Furlong skrev:
> Fredrik Olsson wrote:
>> Richard Koch skrev:
>>> most horrifying was the lack of an integrated editor debugger thingy.
>>>
>>> as a user i think it is becoming at least deterring
>>>
>> What is wrong with Emacs and gdb?
>>
>> Why not try out Walters own debugger tips at:
>> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/windbg.html
>> I am quite sure that if it is good enough for Walter, it is good 
>> enough for you and me.
> 
> Absolutely false. In the context he is speaking of, managers are looking 
> for tools that will enable RAD. D is certainly not capable of calling 
> itself a RAD language. (For the language novice) With C#, most any 
> competent programmer who has never seen the language before can sit down 
> at the IDE and bang out an app in a day, with little hassle.

And who says D is a RAD language? The website in it's very first 
paragraph says: "D is a systems programming language". With the 
exception of the news archives I can not find a single hit on RAD on 
www.digitalmars.com/d.

So obviously if what someone wants is a RAD tool for writing UI-apps, 
then D is not the right tool, nor does the author claim so. It does not 
mean that D is any less good at solving the problem domain it do targets.


And I see that as a strength of D, not being tightly coupled with an 
IDE. C# is tightly coupled with Visual Studio, and is pretty useless 
without it. You can make it work, but well then it is no longer easy and 
"trouble free". A language do not need that property o be successful, 
and excel in it's field.

Java works pretty much every where, lots of IDE:s available, none 
required. Needing and IDE to get started is not an requirement for 
success or adoption; Perl, PHP, Python, C/C++, and countless others do 
just fine.

In fact the majority of languages get IDE-support because they are 
popular, they do not get popular because they have IDE-support.


// Fredrik Olsson