On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 11:56:19 +0300, retard <[email protected]> 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.
Agree on this one except one thing, you have to except it has a really
high "potential".
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?
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
You can't compare D to any of them, at least D2, they are final.
Do people take such risks? Or even question this kind of things? I believe
not.
most likely it is like :
- "This is our target"
- "This is the best/only for this kind of thing" (educated or not)
In past maybe companies had to do such analysis, now they got tools that
at least "work".
The next language transition has to be made by programmers themselves.
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
