On Thu, 18 Dec 2014 20:13:33 +1000 Manu via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
> >> One thing I know for sure, is when they are confronted with > >> constraints, especially on templates, they have absolutely no idea > >> what they're looking at... > > did they ever tried to learn the language? seems that you just throwed > > phobos dox at them and expecting them to use that dox to learn D. > > I never threw phobos docs at them, they found that themselves. I was > actually kinda trying to steer them away from those docs in some > cases, by insisting they hack on the code while I was in the room... so no proper training at all? now it's completely clear why D was dismissed. > > D is not C. D is not C++. one must learn it before using it. and phobos > > documentation is not for learning the language, it's reference for > > phobos. > > I can safely say I never 'learned D' by your definition. > I brute forced my way with nothing more than the phobos reference, and > the parallel language reference. are you writing the commercial production code in D at the same time? experimenting is ok when you have limitless bugdet and/or no deadlines. i love D and i was trying to gently push D in our workflow, but i never thinking about doing that without training. i would fire myself if i'll try to do that. > A senior C/C++ programmer should DEFINITELY be able to learn D by osmosis. ...in his free time, doing pet projects and be dedicated to that. and yet C++ templates are so bad that one has to forgot nearly everything he knows in that field before going to D templates. and using D without templates is like running with your legs tied together. > > i bet the story was like this: "guys, look at this cool language, it's > > almost like C++, and has some great features! let's use it!" "ah, > > almost like C++? so we don't have to learn? great, let's do it! but... > > hey... what do all that gibberish in documentation mean? i've never > > seen that is C++... screw it, this wannabe C++ language is awful!" > > Don't be insulting. > C++ programmers know exactly how bad C++ is. We've been discussing D's > alternative approaches to common C++ problems for months, many hours > wasted in front of the white board discussing the differences between > the languages. > They had a *lot* of background conversation to work with, much more > than I had when I learned D. i'm sorry. it's not about personal insulting or "C++ style of thinking", it's about the directions. D IS NOT C/C++. i can't stress that harder. expecting good C++ programmer to become good D programmer without proper training (or alot of time spent doing pet projects in D) is simply asking for troubles and frustration.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature