On Tuesday, 26 July 2016 at 15:11:00 UTC, llaine wrote:
Hi guys,
I'm using D since a few month now and I was wondering why
people don't jump onto it that much and why it isn't the "big
thing" already.
Everybody is into javascript nowadays, but IMO even for doing
web I found Vibe.d more interesting and efficient than node.js
for example.
I agree that you have to be pragmatic and choose the right
tools for the right jobs but I would be interested to have
other opinion on thoses questions.
I think it is because D has some fundamental problems. It is a
risk to use software that is not proven to be safe, effective,
and easy to use. The fact there are so many bugs(and many are big
blockes) in D says something about D, it matters not how fast
they are fixed.
It forces you in to a certain mold. All that power it has is
attractive, but much of it is hot air if you can't get it off the
ground in any serious professional way. The larger the project
one works on the more likely one will run in to bugs, the more
complex the language is the slower it understand the problems,
and the more limited tools one has, the slower it is.
So, D has many things going against it compared with well
establish languages. Because businesses care about the $$$, it
matters what they use. D covers a lot more ground than almost any
other compiler out their but it doesn't cover any of it will
except in a few cases(the things that make it attractive). So,
you can see D as a sort of dried up waste land desert with a few
nice palm trees growing here and there and a few scorpions. C++,
say, is a very lush forest with many tree dwelling monkeys. Which
environment would you rather use? Sure, there is potential in the
desert, it has nice hot sand, so if you like that, you'll be in
paradise... also if you like palm trees(and most people in the D
forum like palm trees... or scorpions, they can be a tasty treat
every now and then).
Ok, maybe a bit exaggerated, but point is most people don't like
the desert and D is like a desert, but not as extreme. To
actually prove why would require about 158 MIT students, a 10M$
grant, and a time machine. Do you have any of that?
