On Tuesday, 25 November 2014 at 13:24:04 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 17:10:25 -0800
> Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d-announce
> <digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com> wrote:
>
>> I know it's a tough call. But I do see these sorts of comments regularly, and it is a fact that there are too many D libraries gone to seed that won't compile anymore, and that makes us look bad.
> but D wins in overall. being one of the architects in my bussiness i
> was eagerly pushing D as our main development language. it's good that
> this thing (and some other too) happens before i succeeded. now we keep
> going with C++, as it fscks safety too, fscks principle of least
> astonishment, almost never fixes inconsistencies, but it has alot more
> libraries and i can hire alot more programmers with it. i'm still using
> D as a language for my hobbyst throw-away projects though, and D is
> great for such things. D wins, 'cause i *almost* stopped ranting (not
> only in this NG) and just accepting it as is. well, almost as is, i'm
> applying alot of patches over vanilla D. this, of course, makes my code
> incompatible with every other D compiler out here, but luckily this is
> not a concern anymore.

"just accepting it as is" - Well, there's no need to do that. If there are issues, you're free to comment on them, make a feature request and/or fix them yourself. Everybody accepts any language "as is" as long as it's a mainstream language, regardless of any shortcomings or major annoyances. Your comment proves just that.

Just this week I was working on new software and I'm still amazed at how many options I have in D (and I keep discovering new options). D is always compared to C++ in terms of performance and libraries. Sure, there are more libraries (and by extension programmers) out there for C++. Performance might be better or worse, depending on the library and the programmer. However, The sheer abundance of options and modeling power in D is one of the reasons I stick with D. I deal with problems concerning language processing (grammar, rules etc.), i.e. mapping the human mind to a machine, and D always gives me a way to model complex and intricate systems. Sometimes I look at the code and think "How would I have implemented this in C, Python or Java?" I shudder and say "No way!" Believe it or not, modeling power, often overlooked, is one of the key features of programming languages of the future. Performance can always be improved. But modeling power is hard to add, if you don't have it already. Libraries, well, if you have strong modeling power, you can roll your own very quickly. Maybe an abundance of libraries is a sign that a language lacks modeling power.

On Friday, 28 November 2014 at 12:06:06 UTC, Chris wrote:
> On Tuesday, 25 November 2014 at 13:24:04 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
>> On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 17:10:25 -0800
>> Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d-announce
>> <digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I know it's a tough call. But I do see these sorts of comments regularly, and it is a fact that there are too many D libraries gone to seed that won't compile anymore, and that makes us look bad.
>> but D wins in overall. being one of the architects in my bussiness i
>> was eagerly pushing D as our main development language. it's good that
>> this thing (and some other too) happens before i succeeded. now we keep
>> going with C++, as it fscks safety too, fscks principle of least
>> astonishment, almost never fixes inconsistencies, but it has alot more
>> libraries and i can hire alot more programmers with it. i'm still using
>> D as a language for my hobbyst throw-away projects though, and D is
>> great for such things. D wins, 'cause i *almost* stopped ranting (not
>> only in this NG) and just accepting it as is. well, almost as is, i'm
>> applying alot of patches over vanilla D. this, of course, makes my code
>> incompatible with every other D compiler out here, but luckily this is
>> not a concern anymore.
>
> "just accepting it as is" - Well, there's no need to do that. If there are issues, you're free to comment on them, make a feature request and/or fix them yourself. Everybody accepts any language "as is" as long as it's a mainstream language, regardless of any shortcomings or major annoyances. Your comment proves just that.
>
> Just this week I was working on new software and I'm still amazed at how many options I have in D (and I keep discovering new options). D is always compared to C++ in terms of performance and libraries. Sure, there are more libraries (and by extension programmers) out there for C++. Performance might be better or worse, depending on the library and the programmer. However, The sheer abundance of options and modeling power in D is one of the reasons I stick with D. I deal with problems concerning language processing (grammar, rules etc.), i.e. mapping the human mind to a machine, and D always gives me a way to model complex and intricate systems. Sometimes I look at the code and think "How would I have implemented this in C, Python or Java?" I shudder and say "No way!" Believe it or not, modeling power, often overlooked, is one of the key features of programming languages of the future. Performance can always be improved. But modeling power is hard to add, if you don't have it already. Libraries, well, if you have strong modeling power, you can roll your own very quickly. Maybe an abundance of libraries is a sign that a language lacks modeling power.

About the article, it proves two things. First, you can easily roll your own in D. Second, you have to know the language well to be able to get the most out of it without having to roll your own.[1] Either way, it improves your general understanding of programming.

[1] This includes not hesitating to ask question on D.learn.

On Monday, 24 November 2014 at 15:27:19 UTC, Gary Willoughby wrote:
> Just browsing reddit and found this article posted about D.
> Written by Andrew Pascoe of AdRoll.
>
> From the article:
> "The D programming language has quickly become our language of choice on the Data Science team for any task that requires efficiency, and is now the keystone language for our critical infrastructure. Why? Because D has a lot to offer."
>
> Article:
> http://tech.adroll.com/blog/data/2014/11/17/d-is-for-data-science.html
>
> Reddit:
> http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/2n9gfb/d_is_for_data_science/

Awesome article.
"Paper of the week" is a modest word for this.

Tomer Rosenschtein:

> Awesome article.
> "Paper of the week" is a modest word for this.

The D code is not good.

Bye,
bearophile

On Friday, 28 November 2014 at 22:00:21 UTC, bearophile wrote:
> Tomer Rosenschtein:
>
>> Awesome article.
>> "Paper of the week" is a modest word for this.
>
> The D code is not good.
>
> Bye,
> bearophile

But it was worth a reddit and hackerNews redirection:

"look at that this fuckin genious who understand everthing"

Btw he's not so clever but we promote this paper because we love "papers"

On Friday, 28 November 2014 at 22:18:09 UTC, Tomer Rosenschtein wrote:
> On Friday, 28 November 2014 at 22:00:21 UTC, bearophile wrote:
>> Tomer Rosenschtein:
>>
>>> Awesome article.
>>> "Paper of the week" is a modest word for this.
>>
>> The D code is not good.
>>
>> Bye,
>> bearophile
>
> But it was worth a reddit and hackerNews redirection:
>
> "look at that this fuckin genious who understand everthing"
>
> Btw he's not so clever but we promote this paper because we love "papers"

OMG a new blog post about D!
Mazeltov.
I spread it, even if the guy is stupid.

On Friday, 28 November 2014 at 22:00:21 UTC, bearophile wrote:
> Tomer Rosenschtein:
>
>> Awesome article.
>> "Paper of the week" is a modest word for this.
>
> The D code is not good.
>
> Bye,
> bearophile

Maybe not good by the standards of this group, but it does represent the efforts of someone doing 'real work', so I think it is worthwhile.

I would bet that 'in the wild' there is a lot more D code that looks like that than what might be considered good, idiomatic D.

Craig

On Friday, 28 November 2014 at 22:31:19 UTC, CraigDillabaugh wrote:
> On Friday, 28 November 2014 at 22:00:21 UTC, bearophile wrote:
>> Tomer Rosenschtein:
>>
>>> Awesome article.
>>> "Paper of the week" is a modest word for this.
>>
>> The D code is not good.
>>
>> Bye,
>> bearophile
>
> Maybe not good by the standards of this group, but it does represent the efforts of someone doing 'real work', so I think it is worthwhile.
>
> I would bet that 'in the wild' there is a lot more D code that looks like that than what might be considered good, idiomatic D.
>
> Craig

I understand why D is still underground.The guy use R, by miracle he suddently test a strong typed-compiled-lang and he concludes: "well, those compiled lang seem interesting...".
Then Someone post this here, on reddit, on HackerNews...

And Miracle!

Everybody thinks it's awesome.
Common...

CraigDillabaugh:

> Maybe not good by the standards of this group, but it does represent the efforts of someone doing 'real work', so I think it is worthwhile.

Perhaps part of the cause of the low quality of the code in that blog post is the design of D language is not "bondage" enough. This worries me a little, because most D code I see in the wild is not good, and looks more like a Java/C++ mix. In Python culture there is a stronger pressure to write Pythonic code similar to Python code written by all other Python programmers. In the Go culture this is even stronger, there's even only one standard way to format code, and the language is simpler so there is less possibility for usage of alternative constructs (while in D you have often five ways to shoot the foot). From what I've seen the Rust culture is more "bondage" than D culture, in both surface look of code, and idioms, and I think this is good.

Bye,
bearophile

On Friday, 28 November 2014 at 22:41:12 UTC, Tomer Rosenschtein wrote:
> On Friday, 28 November 2014 at 22:31:19 UTC, CraigDillabaugh wrote:
>> On Friday, 28 November 2014 at 22:00:21 UTC, bearophile wrote:
>>> Tomer Rosenschtein:
>>>
>>>> Awesome article.
>>>> "Paper of the week" is a modest word for this.
>>>
>>> The D code is not good.
>>>
>>> Bye,
>>> bearophile
>>
>> Maybe not good by the standards of this group, but it does represent the efforts of someone doing 'real work', so I think it is worthwhile.
>>
>> I would bet that 'in the wild' there is a lot more D code that looks like that than what might be considered good, idiomatic D.
>>
>> Craig
>
> I understand why D is still underground.The guy use R, by miracle he suddently test a strong typed-compiled-lang and he concludes: "well, those compiled lang seem interesting...".
> Then Someone post this here, on reddit, on HackerNews...
>
> And Miracle!
>
> Everybody thinks it's awesome.
> Common...

You're the one that called it awesome!  I don't think anyone here was overly excited about it, but we are always happy to see D get good press.

Maybe the guy the wrote the article is just an average programmer, but hey most of the programmers in the world are average programmers - so this article could appeal to that segment of the market.