Why aren't you using D at work?

[Chris via Digitalmars-d]

On Friday, 29 May 2015 at 14:46:06 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
> On Friday, 29 May 2015 at 14:22:58 UTC, Chris wrote:
>> However, for a constantly growing long-term code base, D is my 
>> language of choice. It's clean (i.e. maintainable), flexible 
>> (many ways to tackle new problems), easily unit-testable and, 
>> of course, compiles to native machine code. It also interfaces 
>> to C(++) which is very important.
>
> Yes, C++ interfacing could prove important, if it can cover
> >95% of C++ library interfaces.
>
> Are you using D for a constantly growing long-term code base, 
> or planning to?

I've been using D for a long-term project for quite a while now.

>>> There is no way a generic solution can beat a tailored 
>>> solution when it comes to abstract datatypes and memory 
>>> management, so having lots of options in a standard library 
>>> sounds useful.
>
> Ugh, I said the opposite of what I meant. I don't think having 
> lots of allocation options in a standard library sounds all 
> that useful, since I will most likely roll my own when hitting 
> a serious performance problem. Rolling your own is often the 
> same amount of work as "searching for  a narrow solution" 
> unless you are doing something really complicated.
>
> I think many standard libraries could be cut down to the most 
> generally useful functionality. In C++ I use std::array or my 
> own data structures, I only occasionally use std::vector… In 
> Python I use no more than 5% of the standard library. Generally 
> useful solutions (like comprehensions) beats narrow solutions 
> 99% of the time, because when you need something narrow then 
> the pre-canned narrow solutions often require hacks to serve 
> the purpose (the wrong kind of narrowness or "fits perfectly 
> except it doesn't work when…X…").