On Monday, 2 February 2015 at 01:43:02 UTC, Jerry Morrison wrote:
On Monday, 2 February 2015 at 00:58:53 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 2/1/15 3:52 PM, Jerry Morrison wrote:
The other big thing missing from the Vision doc is picking a niche,


That may as well come later - or not at all. We don't think it is now time to commit to a particular niche.

OK. Just keep in mind that if you want to “cross the chasm” from visionaries to pragmatics, it requires meeting 100% of the needs of at least one niche (whether that's real-time, bare-metal, desktop apps, web servers, data analysis, mobile apps, or whatever).

It does no good to meet 90% of the needs of many niches.

https://blogs.saphana.com/2013/02/04/the-end-of-the-beginning-sap-hana-has-crossed-the-chasm/

What was the niche C++ aimed for a couple decades back, C with objects? D is aiming for the same "niche" as C and C++, a general-purpose, native-compiled language that allows you to extract almost-maximal performance while still being relatively easy to use, at least compared to the alternatives.

Perhaps focusing on a smaller niche first would allow D to gain a larger following quicker, but that might box it in from becoming more general-purpose later, as early decisions optimize for that niche and might be tough to undo. Go certainly seems stuck in a niche now, though I'm not sure how much of that is because they just don't want to add more general-purpose features like generics, ie they're happy in their niche.

C and C++ are very general-purpose, but they can still be considered as a "niche" of performance languages. What's wrong with D aiming for that "niche?"

Reply via email to