Thank you all for those answers.
For me, open source is not a sufficient reason. Look at any
random open source github project that has 1 contributor, 10
commits, and dead since 3 years. (like mine)
Look at this crapy PHP thing. It as 22 years old, and not ready
to be dead yet.
Look at that brillant D language. It as 15 years old, but almost
unknown and unused.
Look at that Go language that deem whitespace-only line is an
error. It as 7 years old, and everybody in the office ask me to
code with it.
That remind me Tokyo Tyrant and Kyoto Tycoon, excellent key-value
database that I used in the past. Completly forgotten.
That remind me Rebol. This language just blow-up my mind every
times I return to it. RIP.
Joakim wrote:
You have to be prepared to maintain ancient toolchains yourself
Joakim: Your are right about the toolchain. I'm always using DMD,
but I probably should concider start working with GCD and LCD,
too.
Iain Buclaw wrote:
I would be a lot more worried if something happened to me, if I
were you.
Ruppe wrote:
But Iain's knowledge and connections with gdc is stuff I have
no clue about.
Iain, Adam: Can I concider working with GCD, knowing that only 1
guy knows everything about the project?
Rion wrote:
Apple without Jobs is still Apple
Rion: Apple is not a good example to compare with. They make
money, not coding during jogs for the pleasure, or for yearly
conference for 3k viewers.
codephantom wrote:
It's all fairly new... be patient and give it time to grow.
codephantom: If every other people wait for D language to grow
before using it, it will never grow.
For me, the whole univers of D is talking, working and coding
arround the language itself. D needs high level realisations,
releases and success. They are so few.
What can make D successful enough to stay alive like C and cross
the ages?
I would pay my company to let work with D. (...no, but you get
the idea)
I'm soo frustated.
Have a nice day anyway. :)
(sorry for my bad english)
