Don wrote:
John Reimer wrote:
Agreed.
D may be successful in areas we don't necessarily predict or prefer,
and .NET is just one of several interesting possibilities to explore.
Therefore, I don't think we should get too tunnel-visioned about "D is
better because it's a compiled language".
I agree. I don't see the point of VM's, but D should be better because
it's a better language. Not because of how the compiler is implemented.
Not only do I agree as well <g>, but I want to emphasize John's point
that we can't predict what opportunities will come from D being on .NET.
I've run into a lot of programmers lately who, if a language isn't on
.NET, will not look at it. .NET has a huge and growing market presence.
There are a lot, and I mean a lot, of .NET developers, and to ignore
them is shortsighted.
I can almost guarantee that people will find surprisingly cool uses to
put D.NET to. Look at all the things Don has done with string mixins
that never occurred to me!
Aside from that, the more platforms D is on, the more 'real' the
language will be, and the more confident developers will be in risking
using it.
