"Peter Alexander" <peter.alexander...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:j50h1v$ol8$1...@digitalmars.com... > On 16/09/11 10:51 PM, Walter Bright wrote: >> On 9/16/2011 2:47 PM, Peter Alexander wrote: >>> Essentially, I agree with his conclusion in the post. Tools and >>> libraries would >>> be my biggest concerns (in that order). The fact that D (usually) >>> makes things >>> easier for me barely registered when thinking about this. >> >> If you had $100,000,000 none of these are an issue, as you can easily >> afford to hire top developers to address any and all of them. >> >> There's a reason why huge companies like Microsoft, Google, Intel and >> Apple bring compiler dev in house. It's because they are so heavily >> reliant on compiler technology, they cannot afford not to. > > It's not just a question of "Can D do this?" but also "Is D the best > choice for this?" > > For example, if the job was to produce a AAA video game that ran on PC, > PS3 and XBox 360, I'm sure you could *do it* with D if you paid people to > develop the compiler tech and tools to produce PowerPC code and interface > with all MS's and Sony's libraries and tools. But would you? >
I would. It would beat the hell out of trying to do everything in C++. Many different reasons: People who are *good* at C++ are hard to find, and even harder to cultivate. And that's never going to change. It's a fundamental limitation of the langauge (at least until the Vulcans finally introduce themselves to us). But D's a lot easier for people to become good at. And then there's the enurmous savings in build times alone. Full recompiles of AAA C++ games are known to take upwards of a full day (not sure whether that's using a compile farm, but even if it is, D could still cut down on compile farm expenses, or possibly even the need for one). I'm sure there are smaller reasons too, but I'm convinced the primary reason why AAA game dev is C++ instead of D is ultimately because of inertia, not the languages themselves, or even the tools (If the AAA game dev industry genuinely wanted to be using D, you can bet that any tools they needed would get made). I'm sure there are a lot of pet languages out that wouldn't measure up to this test, even for the people who are fans of such langauges, but I've been with D *specifically* because I see it as a genuinely compelling contender. Languages that have limited suitability automatically turn me off. For instance, I'm a huge fan of what I've seen about Nemerle: But because it's .NET-only and doesn't have much (if anything) in the way of low-level abilities, I've never even gotten around to downloading the compiler itself, let alone starting any projects in it. I really don't even see D as a pet language. To me it's a bread-and-butter langauge. And I took to it because the other bread-and-butter languages were getting to be anything but: C++'s bread was getting moldy and it's butter rancid, and Java is more of a Wonderbread with "buttery-spread". Sure, sometimes the slices aren't even, and it might have some air bubbles, but that's still one hell of an improvement over rotten and/or manufactured.
