On 12/27/10 3:33 PM, "Jérôme M. Berger" wrote:
Jérôme M. Berger wrote:
...
I should perhaps add a couple of points:
- I like D (or I would not be here);
- D has some advantages over Python (mostly to do with low level
programming and performance);
- D and Python have some features that are on a par with each other;
- Python has some advantages over D too (reflection comes to mind).
We will not advance the cause of D by pretending that it is better
at everything than all other languages. If we try to, we will simply
annoy people who will see that we lied somewhere and simply assume
that we lied everywhere. Seeing D's strength (and they are many) is
all very good, but we must not be blind to the fact that others have
strengths too.
Jerome
Strongly agree. What I think presses some people's buttons is the
following pattern:
1. Some strong statement is aired on a subjective topic, e.g. in this
case a certain comparative aspect of two languages. Many people aren't
equally experienced in both so they need to choose between going with
the poster's assertiveness or spend time on doing due research.
2. If nobody answers, the strong statement "stays" and spreads possibly
inaccurate rumor.
3. On occasion someone _will_ carry the due diligence and would reveal
the issues with the claim.
4. In these rare instances, the poster subsequently dilutes the
statement by qualifications, amendments, and retractions, sometimes
relying on the ultimate placating device "I still have a lot to learn".
It's a risk worth taking: most of the time everything stops at point 2
and in the worst case the person who spent time debunking is silenced by
playing the modesty card.
Andrei
