On Sunday, 24 December 2017 at 21:27:12 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
On Sun, 2017-12-24 at 16:58 +0000, Laeeth Isharc via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
Programming languages are tools for solving problems, and
people face different problems and they also have different
capabilities and tastes, which means even for people facing
identical problems, the right tool for the job may not be the
same because they aren't identical as groups and as
individuals.
Thinking of a programming language as a domain specific
language for solving problems in a domain helps with this.
Along with can a language enable creation of a DSL for solving
my problems. Creating functions is creating a DSL in any
language.
That's an extremely odd way to conceive of D, IMO, like
conceiving of a banana as being like an apple, only it tastes
like a banana and has a different shape.
If a general purpose programming language is to be conceived of
as a domain specific language, what's the difference between a
true domain specific language and a regular programming language?
That's really the whole point about D. It's an era where people
start out assuming that using the right tool for the job means
that one tool can't do two different kinds of job well. But, as
Walter has said elsewhere I think, in some cases that's because
the tools people are used to using are limited, whereas in fact
there's no need for that - just use one tool that's good at both.
It's going to be a struggle to recognise such a tool if you
start with the presumption it cannot exist. And talking about
languages as identical with DSLs only encourages this
misconception, I think.
How does prestige develop? From tangible consequences
produced by able and virtuous people acting together to create
something. There's a long lead time on that one, but it's not
something that can be rushed.
And sales and marketing. Arguably C was the last language that
got traction based solely on technical benefit and tribalism.
All other languages with traction since have had serious
marketing behind them.
I don't think I suggested that tribalism in the everyday sense of
the word is favourable to the adoption of a language. But that
aside, C is quite a big example, and I don't see that it has no
relevance to the present, even though conditions are of course
different. Was Python adopted because of a big marketing budget?
If so, I didn't know that - who paid for it? How about R?
I think you also need to consider consequences of beliefs if you
are wrong and the choices available in circumstances (unless you
can figure out how to create new choices). You write as if
adoption is flatlining. It isn't - it's growing at a healthy
pace, as best I can see. Human perception doesn't deal very well
with compound growth. It's disappointing for a long time, and
all of a sudden it's surprising.
It's by far best at this point to get across successful stories
about the adoption of D to people who are already receptive to
them because they have some problems that D might help with than
to try to get people to listen to you who have no interest in
listening. Persuasion works when people are ready to move
towards you. You can't compel that.
