On Thursday, 9 March 2017 at 13:36:28 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
>
> It's not like  D is threat to them anyway.
>

I'm not sure why you would think that, if anything that reinforced my point.

On Thursday, 9 March 2017 at 13:40:09 UTC, Guillaume Piolat wrote:
> On Thursday, 9 March 2017 at 13:36:28 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
>>
>> It's not like  D is threat to them anyway.
>>
>
> I'm not sure why you would think that, if anything that reinforced my point.

I am speaking of what they are perceiving not what I think. They don't perceive D as a threat, why would they feel a need to smack talk D?

On Thursday, 9 March 2017 at 14:08:00 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
>
> I am speaking of what they are perceiving not what I think. They don't perceive D as a threat, why would they feel a need to smack talk D?

I don't really want to talk with you.

On Thursday, 9 March 2017 at 14:38:32 UTC, Guillaume Piolat wrote:
> On Thursday, 9 March 2017 at 14:08:00 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
>
> I don't really want to talk with you.

Whatever suits you, but don't pretend that people that express views about D online are the competition. They are overwhelmingly people that have used it or are using it.

So whatever they like or dislike about it is rooted in their experience. I.e. It is real.

On Thursday, 9 March 2017 at 13:36:28 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
> On Thursday, 9 March 2017 at 12:27:30 UTC, Guillaume Piolat wrote:
>> The competition is clever enough to emphasize that D is 14 years old and has a GC, so they don't even try it.
>
> The competition doesn't smack talk D, I think. If they mention D they tend to do so in  a friendly way. It's not like  D is threat to them anyway.
>
> Past or current D users might complain though.

I don't think the community should think in terms of "threat" or "competition" I mean languages are basically tools to get a job done.  Most developers are 9-5 types and wont leave their comfort zone anyways unless they have to.  I agree that I rarely see other forums talking bad about D and if something is negative it's usually a persons opinion on x or y not really disparaging.

Also, not everyone is anti-GC that might be interested in using D anyways.  You pick the right tool for the job and if you look at the JVM lots of apps/libs have been written on it that run fast and are widely used.

Don't worry bout the rest and focus on improving the D ecosystem.  I like it but sometimes you hit that wall where something doesn't work or isnt implemented in the ecosystem (I know ppl can contribute and write it) but sometimes you want to just get something done and not have to worry about some lib is missing a needed feature or not even there.  I've been messing with dotnet core lately and I know there is a much larger community but the libs are constantly getting released to support it and for web stuff it is pretty efficient.

Bottomline is D with all the little issues here and there is doing fine.  Dont worry about the others.  Also how many times a week can the same questions be asked on this forum about the same topics?  I feel I am re-reading the same stuff weekly

On Thursday, 9 March 2017 at 11:52:42 UTC, thedeemon wrote:
> On Wednesday, 8 March 2017 at 20:00:54 UTC, aberba wrote:
>> From a technical and experience point of view (those with experience in large D code-base), how is only D's GC & optional MMM a significant production-use blocker?
>
> This is mostly a psychological effect of C++ folks having aversion to any GC.

It is interesting to have watched this debate over the years. Bjarne S. responded to the Java crowd by embracing the GC. He still has on his FAQ: "If you want automatic garbage collection, there are good commercial and public-domain garbage collectors for C++. For applications where garbage collection is suitable, C++ is an excellent garbage collected language with a performance that compares favorably with other garbage collected languages."

On Thursday, 9 March 2017 at 15:54:04 UTC, dewitt wrote:

> Also how many times a week can the same questions be asked on this forum about the same topics?  I feel I am re-reading the same stuff weekly

That's a good sign. It comes with the territory when a language starts to see serious consideration for important projects. Eventually someone will put together a resource that answers these concerns.

On Thursday, 9 March 2017 at 15:54:04 UTC, dewitt wrote:
> I don't think the community should think in terms of "threat" or "competition" I mean languages are basically tools to get a job done.

Yeah, and that is a trend that is increasing as the cost of developing new languages are falling. No single tool for everything.

However, the tendency in the smaller programming communities is to smack-talk the big leaders: Java, C++, JavaScript... If you go to a JavaScript forum they hardly talk about other languages at all.

Now, I have seen some people on reddit saying things like "Forget about D, D is a dead language". However, that doesn't speak to age. C++ is 30 years old. It speaks to no perceiving a clear project vision: language X is _the_ language to do _Y_.

As you said, languages are tools to get a task done. I'm currently looking for languages that don't require a runtime and can generate WebAssembly so that I can create WebWorkers that are efficient. Anyone language doing best in that category will be perceived as having a clear vision...

I don't people will perceive a clear vision until you are seen as targeting something specific.

On Thursday, 9 March 2017 at 16:12:46 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
> On Thursday, 9 March 2017 at 11:52:42 UTC, thedeemon wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 8 March 2017 at 20:00:54 UTC, aberba wrote:
>>> [...]
>>
>> This is mostly a psychological effect of C++ folks having aversion to any GC.
>
> It is interesting to have watched this debate over the years. Bjarne S. responded to the Java crowd by embracing the GC. He still has on his FAQ: "If you want automatic garbage collection, there are good commercial and public-domain garbage collectors for C++. For applications where garbage collection is suitable, C++ is an excellent garbage collected language with a performance that compares favorably with other garbage collected languages."

C++11 also defined a GC ABI for those "commercial and public-domain garbage collectors".

Section 20.7.4, Pointer safety.