Andrei Alexandrescu 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. > > > 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. > >
It was under my impression that is because whole D thing was badly engineered from the start. Programming work was great, but whole other parts of this en devour are badly played. Just too much messed up priorities.
