On Friday, 25 September 2015 at 19:07:08 UTC, Chris wrote:
I think there's a good bit of fear involved. I've seen this kind of behavior with other things, not just D. Nothing ever suits people, nothing will do. It's an excuse based on latent fear.
Risk aversion is just good project management though. Fringe tools are delegated to smaller tasks, and that just makes a lot of sense if you are looking at the failure potential for a long term development plan. Java, Go and C++ makes more sense as far as mitigating risk goes than Rust, Nim and D.
the last bit you build, once the language is working. But these days it's the other way around, people think IDE means that a given language is good. It's just easier to use.
A good IDE is essential when working with large application libraries/frameworks etc. For more limited system programming a good editor works well enough.
But there appears to be several stand alone visual debugger front ends based on gdb/lldb, so reducing the scope to having a D friendly visual debuggers ought to be good enough.
changed my whole way of thinking. OOP no longer exists for me. D is iconoclastic, and this p*sses people off. You have to rethink all the time. Not many people want to do that.
I don't understand what would make D iconclastic? The feature set is quite ordinary c++ish, but there are some areas that show that features have been added without enough work being put into them before they were implemented. But OO is primarily about modelling, it wasn't meant to be a low level programming paradigm. Classes etc is just language features to support the high level model and evolving it over time. Ths is where C++ went wrong IMO.
