On Wednesday, 27 January 2016 at 05:28:56 UTC, Jack Stouffer
wrote:
On Tuesday, 26 January 2016 at 21:50:58 UTC, Igor wrote:
What D lacks is organizational structure! It's akin to a bunch
of kids programming in their bedrooms cobbling together stuff
and being ecstatic that it works(for them at least).
I'm going to chalk this up to lack of experience in volunteer
based software projects.
D is basically stagnate(bug fixes and piddly stuff don't
count), which is pretty sad considering it looks to be a one
of the best languages on the planet.
This is absolutely ridiculous, I'm sorry, there's no other way
to describe this.
The sheer number of new language features, removals of bad
ideas, and new library features makes C++ growth look glacial
in comparison. I literally know of no other language than
Python that has as quick a turnaround on new ideas than D has.
Um,
1. I'm not comparing it to C++.
2. Compared to the explosion that D1 had several years ago and
all the libraries that were create and all the work, D is
relatively stagnate. Just because stuff is still happening
doesn't mean anything.
D has lost a lot of momentum in the Phobos\Tango mess and many of
the eager programmers in D seemed to have moved on to greener
pastures. It's been over 15 years since D's incarnation and one
would expect it to be much much further along?
"C was originally developed by Dennis Ritchie between 1969 and
1973". Within 10 years C as pretty much the defacto standard.
Maybe D needs to create it's own OS built on an OOP foundation
without all the pitfalls of modern windows, OSX and Linux? Maybe
that will put it on the map.
