On Friday, 25 September 2015 at 20:05:08 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grostad
wrote:
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.
"Iconoclastic" is a bit exaggerated, I know. But D makes people
think, not just accept things, which is subversive. I've noticed
that people prefer to accept things as is, which makes life
easier. Hence the huge success of Java and C#. This is also the
reason why people who use these languages are offended and get
angry, when you point out flaws to them (as Jonathan said). It's
like any belief system.
We are not talking about D as a language/tool here, we are
talking about psychological factors. Go and Java got it right
from a psychological point of view. They cater for people's need
for guidance by not giving them options. But I don't think this
is what D is all about. And that's why it is hard for people to
grasp.
Btw, risk is not that big a factor anymore. D is mature enough.
When IBM embraced Java, it was a huge boost for Java, but Java
was still quite young and immature. If IBM embraced D, it would
soon see IDEs and libraries, everything. But nobody embraces D.
