On Sun, May 24, 2015 at 12:06 PM, weaselcat via Digitalmars-d < digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:

>
> Furthermore, I strongly dislike that Rust has made it completely impossible to opt out of bounds checking without annotating your code with unsafe.
>

Using iterators should cause bounds checking to be eliminated; otherwise, it should be a bug.

--
Ziad

On Tuesday, 26 May 2015 at 17:13:18 UTC, ketmar wrote:
> On Tue, 26 May 2015 10:07:08 +0000, Chris wrote:
>
>> With Go I have the sinking feeling that it won't be able to contend with
>> C++ - or D for that matter. It took off due to Google and a fool-proof,
>> easy-to-use infrastructure. But it is way too limited and limiting to be
>> useful for more sophisticated tasks. Go's core devs even say that they
>> wanted it to be an easy-to-use, middle-of-the-road language for those
>> who work in their code mines, focusing on a high output, and it doesn't
>> matter, if you have to write the same function or for-loop with slight
>> modifications over and over and over again.
>
> and it really doesn't matter... for Rob Pike. he also don't like shared
> libraries and other bells and whistles. sometimes he is right, but
> sometimes he is too radical.
>
> Go is a "java from google", aimed to raise a bunch of easily replaceable
> programmers.

Exactly. As such it cannot be a serious contender as regards quality and versatility. There will be loads of Go code around, millions of for-loops on hundreds of thousands of servers, but I don't think it will go any further. Languages like D that are flexible and take useful concepts on board are much better suited for the programming challenges of the future (e.g. sophisticated high speed data processing algorithms).

The thing is that Java and Python (and soon Go?) hit a brick wall sooner or later. Huge efforts are made to improve speed, flexibility and whatnot (JIT, Cython etc). But the real problem lies in rigid and narrow minded design decisions taken more than a decade ago. This is why it's still back to C and C++ for serious stuff.[1]

[1] For more than a decade I've been hearing that with Java 8.x/9.x/10.x this or that issue will be fixed, or that Python will soon have native performance. It never happens and it never will. It's time to move on. Take the D train. :-)

> so, like java, Go can't be complicated. both Gosling and
> Pike are highly talented people, and that talent helps them to design
> dumb languages (which is not as easy as it seems ;-).

On Wednesday, 27 May 2015 at 10:01:35 UTC, Chris wrote:
> On Tuesday, 26 May 2015 at 17:13:18 UTC, ketmar wrote:
>> On Tue, 26 May 2015 10:07:08 +0000, Chris wrote:
>>
>>> With Go I have the sinking feeling that it won't be able to contend with
>>> C++ - or D for that matter. It took off due to Google and a fool-proof,
>>> easy-to-use infrastructure. But it is way too limited and limiting to be
>>> useful for more sophisticated tasks. Go's core devs even say that they
>>> wanted it to be an easy-to-use, middle-of-the-road language for those
>>> who work in their code mines, focusing on a high output, and it doesn't
>>> matter, if you have to write the same function or for-loop with slight
>>> modifications over and over and over again.
>>
>> and it really doesn't matter... for Rob Pike. he also don't like shared
>> libraries and other bells and whistles. sometimes he is right, but
>> sometimes he is too radical.
>>
>> Go is a "java from google", aimed to raise a bunch of easily replaceable
>> programmers.
>
> Exactly. As such it cannot be a serious contender as regards quality and versatility. There will be loads of Go code around, millions of for-loops on hundreds of thousands of servers, but I don't think it will go any further. Languages like D that are flexible and take useful concepts on board are much better suited for the programming challenges of the future (e.g. sophisticated high speed data processing algorithms).
>
> The thing is that Java and Python (and soon Go?) hit a brick wall sooner or later. Huge efforts are made to improve speed, flexibility and whatnot (JIT, Cython etc). But the real problem lies in rigid and narrow minded design decisions taken more than a decade ago. This is why it's still back to C and C++ for serious stuff.[1]
>
> [1] For more than a decade I've been hearing that with Java 8.x/9.x/10.x this or that issue will be fixed, or that Python will soon have native performance. It never happens and it never will. It's time to move on. Take the D train. :-)
>

Only when I can sell D to customers that put money into this kind of stuff

http://www.azulsystems.com/press-2014/azul-systems-and-orc-partner-to-enable-smarter-high-performance-trading

http://chronicle.software/products/koloboke-collections/

http://devblogs.nvidia.com/parallelforall/next-wave-enterprise-performance-java-power-systems-nvidia-gpus/

Ecosystems count more than language features.

--
Paulo

On Wed, 27 May 2015 13:23:16 +0000, Paulo  Pinto wrote:

> Only when I can sell D to customers that put money into this kind of stuff

if customers are deciding which technologies to use... ok then, they can do their work without my help, 'cause they are so knowledgeable.

On Wednesday, 27 May 2015 at 19:35:35 UTC, ketmar wrote:
> On Wed, 27 May 2015 13:23:16 +0000, Paulo  Pinto wrote:
>
>> Only when I can sell D to customers that put money into this kind of
>> stuff
>
> if customers are deciding which technologies to use... ok then, they can
> do their work without my help, 'cause they are so knowledgeable.

It's funny that people spend millions on technologies that makes mediocre or crap languages better, but they would never invest in something like D, because they dread the investment. I think it's because D doesn't have a price tag attached to it. "If it's for free, it must be sh*t", I often hear people say. Maybe we should have a D Enterprise Edition (DEE) and sell it for $1,000. Believe me, people would take to it like ducks take to water.

On 28/05/2015 8:55 p.m., Chris wrote:
> On Wednesday, 27 May 2015 at 19:35:35 UTC, ketmar wrote:
>> On Wed, 27 May 2015 13:23:16 +0000, Paulo  Pinto wrote:
>>
>>> Only when I can sell D to customers that put money into this kind of
>>> stuff
>>
>> if customers are deciding which technologies to use... ok then, they can
>> do their work without my help, 'cause they are so knowledgeable.
>
> It's funny that people spend millions on technologies that makes
> mediocre or crap languages better, but they would never invest in
> something like D, because they dread the investment. I think it's
> because D doesn't have a price tag attached to it. "If it's for free, it
> must be sh*t", I often hear people say. Maybe we should have a D
> Enterprise Edition (DEE) and sell it for $1,000. Believe me, people
> would take to it like ducks take to water.

Or we put together a D consultancy firm, perhaps as part of D's future foundation?

Starting at e.g. bug fixes ext. with price tag ranges on them.
Perhaps even a price tag on working on DIP's.

On Thursday, 28 May 2015 at 09:23:07 UTC, Rikki Cattermole wrote:
> On 28/05/2015 8:55 p.m., Chris wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 27 May 2015 at 19:35:35 UTC, ketmar wrote:
>>> On Wed, 27 May 2015 13:23:16 +0000, Paulo  Pinto wrote:
>>>
>>>> Only when I can sell D to customers that put money into this kind of
>>>> stuff
>>>
>>> if customers are deciding which technologies to use... ok then, they can
>>> do their work without my help, 'cause they are so knowledgeable.
>>
>> It's funny that people spend millions on technologies that makes
>> mediocre or crap languages better, but they would never invest in
>> something like D, because they dread the investment. I think it's
>> because D doesn't have a price tag attached to it. "If it's for free, it
>> must be sh*t", I often hear people say. Maybe we should have a D
>> Enterprise Edition (DEE) and sell it for $1,000. Believe me, people
>> would take to it like ducks take to water.
>
> Or we put together a D consultancy firm, perhaps as part of D's future foundation?
>
> Starting at e.g. bug fixes ext. with price tag ranges on them.
> Perhaps even a price tag on working on DIP's.

Charge them and they will come! :-)

On Thu, 28 May 2015 08:55:57 +0000, Chris wrote:

> On Wednesday, 27 May 2015 at 19:35:35 UTC, ketmar wrote:
>> On Wed, 27 May 2015 13:23:16 +0000, Paulo  Pinto wrote:
>>
>>> Only when I can sell D to customers that put money into this kind of stuff
>>
>> if customers are deciding which technologies to use... ok then, they can do their work without my help, 'cause they are so knowledgeable.
> 
> It's funny that people spend millions on technologies that makes mediocre or crap languages better, but they would never invest in something like D, because they dread the investment. I think it's because D doesn't have a price tag attached to it. "If it's for free, it must be sh*t", I often hear people say. Maybe we should have a D Enterprise Edition (DEE) and sell it for $1,000. Believe me, people would take to it like ducks take to water.

a nice idea. "you don't want it for free? ok, we'll take your money if you want that." ;-)

On 05/22/2015 01:16 PM, Chris wrote:
> On Friday, 22 May 2015 at 17:05:10 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
>>
>> Agreed, D does have its warts and dark corners, but overall it's
>> extremely awesome. I just can't bring myself to starting new projects in
>> any other language these days
>
> True, true. If I have the choice, it's D. If it's another language, I
> very soon start to miss D's features.
>

I've pretty much sworn off all other languages[1]. Life's too damn short to even touch them. I'd sooner switch careers than waste any more of my life on those other langs.

[1] (Aside from occasional nemerle if I need CLR.)

On 05/28/2015 04:55 AM, Chris wrote:
> "If it's for free, it
> must be sh*t", I often hear people say. Maybe we should have a D
> Enterprise Edition (DEE) and sell it for $1,000. Believe me, people
> would take to it like ducks take to water.

Indeed. There's an MBA born every minute ;)