On Monday, 19 March 2018 at 03:53:07 UTC, rikki cattermole wrote:
On 19/03/2018 4:43 PM, Norm wrote:
On Monday, 19 March 2018 at 03:14:51 UTC, rikki cattermole
wrote:
Did they at any point tell us that it was a blocker for your
company who was trialing D?
Because I do not remember once in that time period of any one
saying this.
Walter has gone out of his way in the past to help companies,
even flying to them on his own dime.
If you want to be treated special, we need to have a reason
for you to be treated special, otherwise you're just like
everybody else complaining without giving back.
We don't want to be treated special. We don't want to give
back. This is the *entire* point.
D claims to be "Industry Proven and Ready" but we have to
submit PRs or get special treatment from Walter to use it
effectively? Sorry, but this is why many feel that D is still
just a hobby project.
We are an organisation trying to get work done. D was a
potential replacement of our existing C++/Python tool chain.
Unfortunately it *requires* us to give back, which as I stated
is not our business. Our business is the development of
medical devices and supporting application software, not
compiler or language development.
You just said the magic word, medical.
D was never an appropriate fit here.
dmd's backend has been for thirty years (or so) been up to
recently licensed so that you may not use it for this purpose.
Nothing has changed here.
I have no idea what you're talking about now.
What has the backend license got to do with medical?
D would be a great fit for medical with its @safe, pure and GC.
Supporting application software is standard desktop development.
Some of these applications are for production and testing and the
rest are normal end-user Windows desktop?
We also develop mobile applications but we didn't consider D for
that role.
Cheers,
Norm
