On Sat, 2018-10-20 at 21:12 -0400, Nick Sabalausky (Abscissa) via Digitalmars-d wrote: > […] > > This is a VERY important thing, and it's true for many of us (myself > included). This why it was a HUGE mistake when the community decided > it > should become taboo to promote D as a redesigned C++. That was > ALWAYS > D's core strength, we all know it, that's why many (if not most) of > us > are here, and hell, that's literally what D was *intentionally > designed* > to be.
D became in 2010/2011 what C++ might morph into in 2040? That D is a better C++ remains an excellent strapline. > But then political correctness came and threw that angle out the > window, > in favor of this awkward "fast code fast" nonsense, and we've been > fighting the uphill "I don't understand the point of D" image battle > ever since. Laeeth can give an angle on the 2018 point of D. But yes, part of my gripe is that the D community as a whole is not looking to increase the traction of D in the land of programming. To a great extent nor is C++, it seems to rely on the past market and the battle cry of "AAA games". Go, Python, Rust have shown the way in terms of traction. Ruby and Perl the opposite. I am being drawn more into the Rust milieu and away from the D milieu exactly because of traction generally. I still prefer D/GtkD over Rust/gtk-rs (except for one big thing, channels/futures/executors on the event loop), but with Tilix being the only major D implemented application out there on Debian and Fedora, D isn't getting traction. -- Russel. =========================================== Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
