On Wednesday, 17 December 2014 at 08:30:59 UTC, Manu via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
Here is exactly your problem - trying to do a web development
on Windows :P
Really I have never understood that counter-productive
obsession with a
habit that makes people differentiate development environments
and
production environments so much. You aren't going to use
Windows servers,
are you?
Okay, you go and tell the CEO of my company that we're
switching environments!
We'll need all new software licensing, we'll need to re-jig the
company server and IT infrastructure, we'll also need to
retrain ALL
the staff.
Then we'll have to deal with the vast majority of staff who hate
linux, and refuse to work in that environment.
I expect you to go and do that. Well, actually, in any reasonable
company I'd expect environment to be defined at the initial
design document stage and always be the one fitting for the
specific product. Choosing inferior tools (assuming those are
proved inferior) simply because of some bullshit policies is just
ridiculous.
This is exactly what happened on one of my old jobs - upon
encountering some pressure from company management team leads
just went there and said "Stop messing with our tool choices if
you want this project live. Or start looking for new
programmers." Worked like magic.
It is not like I think that web servers shouldn't work on Windows
- it is just realistic to expect much less effort to be put into
bringing it to production quality. And impractical to lobby for
putting more (limited) effort there. Same applies to most server
technology out there per my experience.
Actually, I recommended it because I had had a positive
experience
with vibe.d in the past. It seemed pretty solid.
Gotta start somewhere. I've had success promoting D to
commercial
users in the past.
Promoting to commercial users is indeed possible but one needs to
explain risks and trade-offs straight. I wonder though how you
have not noticed debugger issues before if there was some
positive experience. There was nothing to debug? :)
Idea that any D project can compete with node.js in "easy to
jump in" domain
is absolutely ridiculous. Attempting this is just dooming
yourself to fail.
Same is trying to advertise it is stable mature language -
reality is it is
simply not true and people will find out it sooner or later.
Sorry, maybe it wasn't clear, we never tried it out against
node.js,
we tried it first, on my recommendation.
When it was rejected, someone else suggested to look at
node.js. We
looked at that, it just worked.
I mean that if "it just worked" was enough to make decision to
use the node.js, then you didn't have any critical requirements
that it fails to address (otherwise you would have looked for
those first). Which means that pretty much any framework out
there was suitable and ease of use was only truly important
criteria.
Interesting part starts when you say "yeah, it have just worked,
BUT.." and start evaluating if ease development will be enough to
compensate for certain architectural issues in the long term
(budget-wise).
We didn't want any of those things from .js though. We're all
low-level/native coders.
We don't have time to debug language and library issues though.
If we
didn't have tooling/library issues, we would have been
perfectly happy
writing whatever code we needed to do our job.
If developer time is more expensive than server time in your
project, most likely there is no point in going for native
languages even if you prefer those. Otherwise debugger issues
and/or necessity to switch the OS environment would not have
stopped you.
If there ever appears a game development company / community
interested in
_investing_ into programming language that would be totally
different story
but also irrelevant to enterprise culture you refer to.
So, in your world, D is a language for nerds (linux nerds at
that!),
and not for serious productivity by enterprise?
Give me a break!
Of course it is language for nerds. Do you see a paid developer
team working on D? At least ONE paid developer? Maybe someone of
existing commercial users pays for adding tools / features? It is
not a product, it is not funded and can't be anything but
language for nerds unless YOU start paying for the change.
Which doesn't mean that it can be very productive language for
serious projects. Nerds are pretty good at doing projects when
there is no one from enterprise to create trouble. I think
Sociomantic has proven quite strongly that such an attitude can
work for successful business.
To start using D effectively in production one needs to stop
considering himself a customer. This is absolutely critical.
