On Wednesday, 30 September 2015 at 04:59:22 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 04:32:52AM +0000, Mike Parker via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Tuesday, 29 September 2015 at 22:05:48 UTC, rumbu wrote:
>My main complaints are also the compiler error messages ("Out
>of memory" is the most annoying one) and the Linux-centric
>approach of the development, but I'm far from being
>disgruntled.
I've never understood the "Linux-centric" complaint. I've been
using D on Windows for 11 years with no problems. Hell, in the
early days, Linux was the red-headed stepchild. DMD may not be
deeply integrated into the MS ecosystem of dev tools (which
could certainly be an issue for a Windows-only dev shop that
uses Visual Studio and peripherals for everything), but that
hardly makes it Linux-centric.
I find these kinds of comments rather humorous, actually. Every
once in a while, somebody would barge into the forum and decry
the current state of things, bemoaning that D is too
Linux-centric and that Windows gets no love.
Then some time later, somebody else barges in, complaining
about why he failed to install D on his Linux box and that the
D developers must therefore be Windows people and D needs more
Linux love.
I've seen both types of complaints. So which is it? Is D
Windows-centric or Linux-centric? Maybe the answer is neither,
it's the PBCAK problem. ;-)
T
I would believe that when core.sys.windows will have the same
amount of code like core.sys.posix after the default
installation. Or when the number of "This function is Windows
only" remarks from phobos docs will surpass the number of "This
function is posix only" remarks. Or when mscoff32 libs will be
included in setup. Or when the libs from windows\lib will not
have a content from 15 years ago.
