On 22-ott-10, at 10:56, retard wrote:
[...]
What annoys me the most in pro D articles is the author usually
tries to
prove (in a naive way) that despite all the deficiencies the
language and
tool chain is better even *now* than all of the competition or that
the
*potential* is so high that the only logical conclusion is to move
to D
*now*. Clearly this isn't the case. These kind of articles give people
the wrong impression. I'm just trying to bring up the *pragmatic*
point
of view.
For instance, I'm starting the implementation of a 64-bit systems/
application programming project *now*. The implementation phase will
last
N months (assume optimistic waterfall process model here). How many
weeks/
months must the N at least be to make D a feasible option?
D1/tango is feasible now (using ldc)
A typical lead developer / project manager has to make decisions
based on
some assumptions. E.g.
Platform Implementation Developer Performance Platform
Time Market Index Risk factor
--------------------------------------------------------------
C/x64 Linux 12 months good 100 medium
C++/x64 Linux 10 months ok 110 high
Java/x64 JVM 8 months excellent 80 low
C#/Windows 64 7 months very good 85 low
Python/Linux 4-5 months very good 30 low
D 12+ months? very bad 80-115 ? very high
The metrics are imaginary. The point was to show that language
goodness
isn't a single scalar value.
Why I think the D platform's risk is so high is because the author
constantly refuses to give ANY estimates on feature schedules.
There's no
up-to-date roadmap anywhere. The bugzilla voting system doesn't work.
Lots of production ready core functionality is missing (for example
how
long has d2 distribution had a commercial quality xml framework?)
D1/tango also has a good xml parser
For example gcc has had 64-bit C/C++ support quite long. But it took
several years to stabilize. The implementation of a 64-bit X-ray
machine
firmware in D cannot begin one week after 64-bit DMD is announced.
