James Fisher: Welcome here.
>Why I'm hesitating to switch to D< You don't need to "switch" to D. Just using it along with other languages is better. >The language, maybe, but this statement is absolutely not true while there is >no associated package manager.< It's called advertisement :-) >a massive "batteries included" standard library is no substitute for a >world-class package manager.< >The productivity gain that comes from being able to execute "dinstall ><somepackage>", and then having it magically available, is *immense*.< Right. >IMO the big-standard-library is a slightly outdated concept in an age where >we're always able to pull stuff from the net in an instant.< There are several more things I'd like in the D standard distribution. External libs don't avoid the need of a rich Phobos. As most other design things, it's a matter of trade-offs. >There's an important reason that other languages have squiffy names: >searchability. Googling for "d <query>" is useless, and "d language <query>" >is still awful.< I think it's too much late to fix this for D. >The point I want to get across here is: the problem with the D programming >language *is not that there are problems with the D programming language.* The >language and compiler (from what I know) have been world-class for some time.< Here there is a huge fallacy. I want a well designed language first, with a well debugged compiler that produces efficient binaries. This is the necessary base to build on, to create Phobos, all nice libraries, and tools like package managers and IDEs. A good language without libraries and tools is not so useful, but if you don't create a good language&compiler first, or you don't express the desire to create it, then I am not interested in it (in the world there are languages that are badly designed but are widely used). Regardless its status along its history, it's several years that D aims to be a good language with a good compiler. Bye, bearophile
