On Tuesday, 22 September 2015 at 06:03:25 UTC, Laeeth Isharc
wrote:
On Monday, 21 September 2015 at 19:15:28 UTC, Maxim Fomin wrote:
OK, the frustration is understandable. D is good enough to
impress in short-run but has problems damaging itself in the
long run. This leads to impression -> frustration cycle.
Well, that may or may not be true. But someone who finds the
error messages offputting isn't a good exemplar of putative
deficiencies that show up in the long run, because these are
part of the initial learning curve and after a year or two or
experience it's really unlikely to be a main factor in
determining choice of framework. Whereas it's understandable
that in the beginning it can be a big source of frustration.
I do not consider error messages as long run issue (it is
discussed in the thread and I didn't mentioned it, so it might
caused impression that I agree with complains about error
messages).
And if you leave the Microsoft ecosystem, I am not sure that D
fares so badly in relation to a certain C family language that
has had a big influence.
If Microsoft ecosystem is left out then my opinion regarding
comparison with Microsoft system is obviously irrelevant.
Comparing with other languages I found D is decently good.
He didn't say how long he had been using D for, but as others
point out one underestimates how much one knows in relation to
existing languages, and forgets that it is a degree of work
over months and years to learn something new...
I always could not understand complaints regarding D hard
learning curve for anyone with C/C++/C# background.
Either you need portability and you care what Mono does, or
you don't.
Commercial decisions are often a matter of tradeoffs. Eg for
internal enterprise software you might find it valuable to be
able to run on both linux and windows, but you can always make
it a service on windows if linux is too much trouble.
Sounds like 'lazy' portability: if app is portable - than good,
if not - ok, we can leave with it:)
