Andrei's list of barriers to D adoption

[Pie? via Digitalmars-d]

On Monday, 6 June 2016 at 02:20:52 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> Andrei posted this on another thread. I felt it deserved its 
> own thread. It's very important.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> I go to conferences. Train and consult at large companies. 
> Dozens every year, cumulatively thousands of people. I talk 
> about D and ask people what it would take for them to use the 
> language. Invariably I hear a surprisingly small number of 
> reasons:
>

and it's taken you that long to now that the following are the 
problem? (No offense... just seems like the following list is 
obvious whether 1 or 1 googol)

> * The garbage collector eliminates probably 60% of potential 
> users right off.
>

Duh! The claim is made that D can work without the GC... but 
that's a red herring... If you take about the GC what do you 
have? A ton of effort to build something that gets D to work 
properly without the GC. It can be done but it isn't done except 
by leet guru's who have the time and knowledge to do it. It is 
not a built in option that works out of the box.


> * Tooling is immature and of poorer quality compared to the 
> competition.
>

Duh! Every use Visual studio? Sure Visual D offers a glimpse of 
hope, but only glimpse. D has some cool stuff but that's all it 
is for most users in my guestimation.

> * Safety has holes and bugs.
>
> * Hiring people who know D is a problem.
>
> * Documentation and tutorials are weak.
>
> * There's no web services framework (by this time many folks 
> know of D, but of those a shockingly small fraction has even 
> heard of vibe.d). I have strongly argued with Sönke to bundle 
> vibe.d with dmd over one year ago, and also in this forum. 
> There wasn't enough interest.
>
> * (On Windows) if it doesn't have a compelling Visual Studio 
> plugin, it doesn't exist.
>
> * Let's wait for the "herd effect" (corporate support) to start.
>
> * Not enough advantages over the competition to make up for the 
> weaknesses above.