On 10 July 2012 13:35, Andrei Alexandrescu <seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org> wrote: > On 7/10/12 2:30 AM, Stefan Scholl wrote: >> >> Caligo<iteronve...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Stefan Scholl<ste...@no-spoon.de> wrote: >>>> >>>> "bearophile"<bearophileh...@lycos.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I think Go is meant to be used mostly on 64 bit servers. >>>> >>>> >>>> There aren't many people using Go on 32 bit systems. That's why there is >>>> (was?) a big memory leak on these systems which wasn't caught early on. >>> >>> >>> There aren't many people using Go, period. >> >> >> Don't know about this, but "Programming in Go" is a bad book (talks about >> OO in Go and the author was clearly paid by number of words) but has a >> higher ranking on Amazon than "The D Programming Language". > > > The book was released only in March; newer books usually have their highest > rank during their first months. Also, TDPL has a paperback and a Kindle > edition, which "compete" in rank with each other. > > As an aside, Gedankenexperiment: imagine D were created at Google and Go > were created by Walter. How would they have fared? I honestly think things > would have been quite, um, different. I believe quite strongly is Go > wouldn't have received any attention, and D would have been a riot. >
D would be in GCC and Go would be trying to baby step over the hurdle and find grip in the GCC community. :o) >> And all the news sites and programmer blogs are nearly silent regarding D. > > > I agree that that's a problem, and it starts with us. > Any future plans on D programming language books? I must admit I'm more of a Pocket Reference guy though. Regards -- Iain Buclaw *(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';
