Hello Yigal,
John Reimer wrote:
Hello Yigal,
John Reimer Wrote:
Hello Tim,
Yigal Chripun Wrote:
personally I don't see a point in JVM/.NET - One of the best
things about D is that you get the ease of use of Ruby/python/etc
with the benefits of native compiling like in c/c++. Why throw
that away and make yet another version of Java/C# ?
Supporting .net would give you access to the most modern and
probably best-currently-supported Windows API. It would, if you
counted Mono, add a very nice cross-platform UI framework.
Finally, depending on what version was supported, it might enable
you to write Silverlight apps in D, permitting flash-like apps
that run cross-functionally in a web browser.
TK
Agreed.
Concerning .NET and D technology, I say go for it... especially if
someone has the initiative to keep such a port going (afterall,
such initiative is really the most important virtue for any hope of
success). For myself, I'm kind of learning not to "restrain" D with
my personal biases. Sometimes we just can't predict what kind of
benefits might be in store for the language, the platform, or other
people; such expiditionary moves might not be successful in
themselves, but they could be the critical factor that brings D to
the limelight in some future endeavor.
D may be successful in areas we don't necessarily predict or
prefer, and .NET is just one of several interesting possibilities
to explore. Therefore, I don't think we should get too
tunnel-visioned about "D is better because it's a compiled
language". It may be important to keep the vision a little more
open to other technologies (like VM's and such) especially as
optimizations improve in these areas. Otherwise, D will be at risk
of loosing it's general purpose nature... and being permanently
fixated as a niche language. Porting to .NET, therefore, becomes a
clever way of "proving" D's viability on other technology
platfroms.
I haven't used C#, but I can bet that D could offer a very
competitive and comfortable programming environment such that it
would be a welcome alternative even in the .NET world. Microsoft
may even come to see the benefits, since D might attract an even
more diverse audience to the platform, people who would have
otherwise avoided it. You never know. ;)
That'd probably be all it would take for me to start experimenting
with .NET and Mono.
-JJR
You make a valid point. Attracting new developers to D by supporting
more platforms is a worthy long-term goal for the D language.
however, I have a 64 bit PC and since Walter is only one person with
limited time, I'd personally want that Walter spend his time in the
short term on adding support for 64 bit, not working on a .net port.
I can live with C# on .net for now and as I said before it's close
enough to a D.net.
On the native compiled front I really wouldn't want to go back to
C++ after using D.
so answering Walter's original question:
for me .net port is VERY low priority compared to 64 bit support
which is a HIGH priority.
Yep, I understand your point as valid also when it comes to
prioritizing which platform most needs to be worked on. That's why
the completion of .NET support would probably have to be done by
another... which may be the case already.
-JJR
also, while I agree with having a D.net to get more exposure for D and
attracting new developers, I personally wouldn't use it and I doubt
any other existing D developers would use it. There's also another
concern about such a port - the libraries. The phobos/Tango split hurt
D enough and adding the .net libs (or the JVM ones) to the mix will
make this issue even worse.
Two things I question in your post:
(1) The assumption that existing D developers won't use it.
(2) The assumption that the D port will only use .net libs.
I don't think we have enough information yet on either point. Perhaps you
know more than I do. :)
-JJR
