my demise

[Kyle Furlong]

Fredrik Olsson wrote:
> 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

"I am quite sure that if it is good enough for Walter, it is good enough 
for you and me."

Was your assertion, which I was disputing. I never claimed that D was a 
RAD language, in fact, quite the opposite.

The OP was about the failure of D as a good fit for the poster's 
project. I was merely pointing out that "good enough" obviously wasn't 
good enough in this case.