On Sunday, 20 September 2015 at 17:32:53 UTC, Adam wrote:
My experiences with D recently have not been fun.
The language itself has a top notch feature rich set. The
implementation, excluding bugs, feels a bit boxy and old
school. .NET has a unified approach and everything seems to fit
together nicely and feels consistent. The abomination of dmd,
though, is it's error messages. Most of them are meaningless
and you have to dive down 2 or 3 levels of assumptions to
figure out what they mean. It's not too bad but because of the
poor tool set it makes it difficult to debug apps.
Visual D, a mighty attempt to bring some sanity to D in
windows, is simply to unpolished to work well. It brings the
looks of Visual Studio but not the feel of how VS works so well
with .NET. I spend over an order of magnitude more time trying
to fix D bugs than I do in .NET. Unfortunately this makes it
infeasible to continue to use D.
For example, I build a ~10k line app in under a week in .NET,
with gui and everything. In D I'm still working on getting the
libraries build. Even with all the power D has, what good is it
if you can't get off the starting line.
Remember, no reason to have the sharpest sword if you can't
wield it.
The problem is that you seem to be accustomed to an IDE of which
D is not tied to.
That would limit (as you put it) its portability. But at the same
time you want a unified tool-set?
Ask any of the vim/emacs users here and they will tell you
otherwise.
