A few notes on choosing between Go and D for a quick project

[Zach the Mystic via Digitalmars-d]

On Monday, 16 March 2015 at 00:27:56 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> I like the analogy of D being a fully equipped machine shop, as 
> opposed to a collection of basic hand tools.
>
> When I was younger it was hard working on my car, because I 
> could not afford the right tools. So I made do with whatever 
> was available. The results were lots of scrapes and bruises, 
> much time invested, and rather crappy repairs. Now I can buy 
> the right tools, and boy what a difference that makes! I can 
> get professional quality results with little effort.

I agree with this. However, it actually implies a huge amount 
about what I would call D's brand. The fully equipped machine 
shop metaphor has some very serious tradeoffs when applied to 
computer programming languages, the steep learning curve required 
to use the machines correctly, for instance.

But I see advantage in this, because I can see a brand -- that 
is, an identity which distinguishes something from its rivals, 
not by flat-out superiority, but by its commitment to particulars 
-- for D here. I think D can market itself to a certain type of 
programmer, and win the language war by empowering this type of 
programmer, thereby inciting the envy of other types of 
programmers, who over time grudgingly concede the inferiority of 
their own styles and follow the herd.

Brands are all about types of people, rather than of products. I 
would love to see D consciously embrace its own kind of person, 
and not just because it feels good, but because of its value as a 
marketing strategy.

I see D attracting *really* good programmers, programmers from, 
let's say the 90-95th percentile in skill and talent in their 
field on average. By marketing to these programmers specifically 
-- that is, telling everyone that while D is for everyone, it is 
especially designed to give talented and experienced programmers 
the tools they need to get their work done -- even if you repel 
several programmers from, say, the 45th percentile or below in 
exchange for the brand loyalty of one from 92nd percentile or 
above, it's probably a winning strategy, because that one good 
programmer will get more done than all the rest combined.