Jeff Nowakowski Wrote: > On 10/18/2010 07:52 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote: > > > > I definitely think that it would be a plus if D had a fully-compliant, open > > source compiler, but I don't see its lack as much of a reason not to use the > > language. The compiler is free and freely available. As long is it does it's > > job, that seems good enough to me. > > The point is that D is competing with many other "next big languages" > that *are* open source. Given the acknowledged benefits, D will > rightfully be dinged on that account. That doesn't mean it will > necessarily be a dealbreaker, but it is a big factor to take into > account, especially considering vendor lock-in. Having all your code > stuck in a proprietary language isn't a positive.
A good example of a failed (initially) closed source language is CAL ( http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/2045 ) - finally open sourced - developed by a single vendor - production ready platform (JVM) - "familiar" language (similar to Haskell) - "radical new" visual development tools The announcement didn't attract (almost) any users. At least there's no evidence.
