"Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisp...@gmx.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.2921.1316239886.14074.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
> On Saturday, September 17, 2011 01:53:07 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> 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.
>
> It's a _lot_ easier to find good C++ programmers than good D programmers,
Oh, definitely. But what I meant was that good D programmers can be
cultivated. People can learn to be good at D. And while the same might
*technically* be true of C++, the curve is so steep that it may as well be
"what's out there is what's out there". It's, more or less, a non-renewable
resource.
>> 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).
>
> As long as you stand much chance of running into a compiler bug, dmd just
> won't be up to snuff for many people. Most programmers are used to not
> having
> to worry at all about bugs in the compiler that they use. And tools are
> _very_
> important to people, so D's lack of tools on par with many other, more
> popular
> languages is a major impediment.
>
> Yes, there's a lot of inertia that needs to be overcome for D to make a
> lot of
> traction in domains where C++ is currently king, but it's a lot more than
> just
> getting people to take a look at D. There are fundamental issues with D's
> current implementation which are a definite impediment. The situation is
> improving without a doubt, but it's still too rough for many programmers.
>
I realize I've said this other times in the past, but I find that the
compiler bugs in DMD are much less severe than the language deficiencies of
a fully-bug-free C++ implementation.
Plus there's the idea of investing in the future to keep in mind: It's like
the old quote: "I may be fat, but you're stupid. I can excersise and diet,
but stupid will always be stupid." D may have some bugs, but investing the
effort to deal with them will lead to further improvements. Dealing with
C++'s problems, OTOH, will hardly do a damn thing. Sure, a few things can be
mitigated somewhat, such as the C++0x^H^H1x^H^H2x^H^H3x improvents. But in
general, investing the effort to deal with C++'s shortcomings won't lead to
significant improvements - it *can't* because it's constrained by its
existing legacy design (not that that won't eventually happen to D, too, but
D is one generation past C++). Ie., D may be buggy, but C++ is crappy. Bugs
can be fixed, but crappy will always be crappy.
>
> I definitely prefer D to C++, but I honestly think that your hatred of C++
> (which you have expressed on several occasions) clouds your judgement on
> the
> matter.
FWIW, I had been a huge fan of C++ for many years and used it extensively
('course, that was quite awhile ago now...). And I *do* think it was a great
language back in it's time. I just think that time is long since past. When
I say "C++ is crappy", I mean "within today's context, and moving forward
from here". It's like the Apple II: I respect it, and I have fond (and a few
not-so-fond) memories of it, but neither of them would be among my first
choices for serious work anymore.
> Many, many programmers are fine with C++, and while many programmers
> may like C++ to be improved or would like a language that's similar to C++
> but
> without as many warts, that doesn't mean that they're going to be in a
> hurry
> to try out D. And many, many of the people who have problems with C++ use
> languages such as C# and Java instead and are fine with that. D has a
> major
> uphill battle to truly become as relevant as any of those languages are
> regardless of how much better it may be.
>
I'm certainly aware of all that, and I do understand. But the question here
wasn't "Do you think OTHER people feel language X is suitable for serious
work?" It was "Do YOU think language X is suitable for serious work?" I
don't doubt other people would disagree with me (especially people who
haven't used D, and even probably some who have), but my own answer is "Yes,
I think D is suitable for such projects, and in such a situation, yes, I
would be willing to put my money where my mouth is."
