== Quote from Walter Bright (newshou...@digitalmars.com)'s article > dsimcha wrote: > >> I think having a SafeD environemnt on .NET/JVM might be > >> an interesting exercise. However, the language doesn't have many > >> interesting new features to justify its existence on either platform. > > > > Don't D's compile-time introspection and generic programming abilities > > count for > > something? They're the biggest reason I use D over C# or Java, and AFAIK D > > is the > > most mainstream language with a comparable level of compile time > > metaprogramming > > ability. > What we may be seeing here is an effect I noticed decades ago with the Zortech > compiler. Let's say you have the Zortech compiler, and BrandX compiler. The > feature lists of the two are: > Zortech: A B C M N O S T U > BrandX: A B C D M N O > Reviewer concludes that Zortech lacks features because it doesn't do D. > Reviewer > never notices S T U because he's used to BrandX and so obviously S T U are not > relevant. > It's a very human thing. For example, back in 1995, a friend of mine would > interview engineers. He'd show them a cell phone, and ask them how they would > improve it. He'd get answers that were simple refinements of making phone > calls. > Nobody suggested adding a calculator, calendar, texting, email, music > playing, a > camera, etc. It simply never occurred to them because people thought of a > phone > as a phone, nothing more. > Back in the 80's, I knew about OOP but saw no value in it. I'd never used it, > and had no idea how to. It certainly wasn't on any of my "it would be nice > if..." desires for a programming language feature.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_aversion