On Friday, 21 April 2017 at 17:20:14 UTC, Vasudev Ram wrote:
> I hope the question is self-evident from the message subject. If not, it means: what are D developers generally called (to indicate that they develop in D)? The question occurred to me somehow while browsing some D posts on the forums just now.

Divas.

On Friday, 21 April 2017 at 21:33:59 UTC, Vasudev Ram wrote:
> On Friday, 21 April 2017 at 19:26:34 UTC, Moritz Maxeiner wrote:
>
> Duh.
>
> Deity. Disciples. Denizens. Dastards. Demons. Deliverers. Dreamers.
>
> Dis thread seems to be doing well, wonder what de devil it will be like in hell.
>
> <Walks back to terminal/>
>
> De D dev session seems to be doing dandy, danke, D team, cause dat's handy.
>
> Ctrl-D

Sorry guys, just to break up a pattern a bit - D'tards! (no offence)

On Friday, April 21, 2017 17:20:14 Vasudev Ram via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> Hi list,
>
> I hope the question is self-evident from the message subject. If not, it means: what are D developers generally called (to indicate that they develop in D)? The question occurred to me somehow while browsing some D posts on the forums just now.
>
> DLanger? DLangist? D'er? Doer? :)
>
> I tend to favor DLanger, FWIW.
>
> Interested to know, just for fun ...
>
> I do realize that there may not be commonly known or accepted terms like this for all languages. For example, I don't know if there is such a term for a C or C++ developer. Might make for an interesting thread.

I've never heard of anyone doing anything like this in any language. Normally, you'd just say that someone is a D programmer or a C++ programmer or a Java Programmer, etc. But then again, I come from a C++ background, not a scripting language background, and the folks who primarily use scripting languages often tend to look at things differently.

- Jonathan M Davis

On Fri, 2017-04-21 at 17:20 +0000, Vasudev Ram via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> Hi list,
> 
> I hope the question is self-evident from the message subject. If not, it means: what are D developers generally called (to indicate that they develop in D)? The question occurred to me somehow while browsing some D posts on the forums just now.
> 
> DLanger? DLangist? D'er? Doer? :)
> 
> I tend to favor DLanger, FWIW.

I would hope none of these, but as ketmar said "programmer".

Terms such as Pythonista, Rubyist, Rustacean, Gopher, etc. are terms of tribalism and exclusion. They are attempts to ensure people claiming membership of the tribe reject being polyglot by pressuring them to eschew all other languages.

A good programmer can work professionally with a number of languages, the psychology of programming people have data supporting this theory – if the languages have different computational models.

Thus I would claim to be a programmer currently working with D for the project I am working on just now, with SCons/Python for the build system. In a while it will be C++ on another project with CMake. Later still it will be C and Meson on a different project. Further on it will be Kotlin and Frege using Gradle for yet another project.

-- 
Russel. ============================================================================= Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder@ekiga.net 41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: russel@winder.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder

On Fri, 2017-04-21 at 21:20 -0700, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> 
[…]
> I've never heard of anyone doing anything like this in any language.
> Normally, you'd just say that someone is a D programmer or a C++
> programmer
> or a Java Programmer, etc. But then again, I come from a C++
> background, not
> a scripting language background, and the folks who primarily use
> scripting
> languages often tend to look at things differently.
> 

I guess most people using scripting languages are just Bashing things together.

;-)

-- 
Russel. ============================================================================= Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder@ekiga.net 41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: russel@winder.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder

On Friday, 21 April 2017 at 22:11:19 UTC, Namespace wrote:
> nuDist - in D you can program as free as you want. ;)

void main()
body
{
  asm
  {
     naked;
  }
}

On Saturday, 22 April 2017 at 04:20:40 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Friday, April 21, 2017 17:20:14 Vasudev Ram via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>> Hi list,
>>
>> I hope the question is self-evident from the message subject. If not, it means: what are D developers generally called (to indicate that they develop in D)? The question occurred to me somehow while browsing some D posts on the forums just now.
>>
>> DLanger? DLangist? D'er? Doer? :)
>>
>> I tend to favor DLanger, FWIW.
>>
>> Interested to know, just for fun ...
>>
>> I do realize that there may not be commonly known or accepted terms like this for all languages. For example, I don't know if there is such a term for a C or C++ developer. Might make for an interesting thread.
>
> I've never heard of anyone doing anything like this in any language. Normally, you'd just say that someone is a D programmer or a C++ programmer or a Java Programmer, etc. But then again, I come from a C++ background, not a scripting language background, and the folks who primarily use scripting languages often tend to look at things differently.
>
> - Jonathan M Davis

I gave the examples of the terms Pythonista and Rubyist right in the message subject. You personally might not have heard of them or similar ones, as you say. But others have. Those terms are used somewhat widely [1] - "Pythonista" is often by Python programmers to refer to themselves (sometimes Pythoneer is used), and "Rubyist" is often used by Ruby programmers to refer to themselves (individually or collectively, as in, "I'm a Pythonista" (sometimes seen on blogs' About pages or Twitter or LinkedIn bios) or "(us/as) Pythonistas" and other variations of the same. Ditto for Rubyists. Another example I've seen used is Lisper (and Lisp is both a compiled and interpreted language - so it's not like such a term is restricted only to scripting or interpreted languages).

[1] Using the word "widely" anecdotally, of course - obviously I've not done a survey on something as trivial as this - it's just that I've been in the field for quite a while, working, interacting with people, reading forums, etc. - and have noticed it used quite often. And I've used Ruby for a few years and Python for many years now, both of them in commercial projects, Python in commercial training that I give, as well as for my own personal projects (mainly Python only).

Secondly, using those terms does not mean they are formal designations of any kind. They are just casual terms that someone must have initially made up and that others caught on to and started using, to describe themselves and their community - i.e. Python or Ruby _users_, not all of whom are necessarily users of those languages _alone. Plenty of Python and Ruby developers use other languages too, including compiled / statically typed ones, like C, C++, Java, etc. I am one of them, in fact - I've used both C (and on DOS, Windows and Unix, a lot) and Pascal (Turbo Pascal a lot, Delphi some) earlier, Java some too. (See my other reply upcoming after this one - to Russel Winder). In general, those terms are not meant to be either pejorative or the reverse of pejorative, although some people may of course use the terms disparagingly, self-glorifyingly or whatever.

>But then again, I come from a C++ background, not a scripting
> language background, and the folks who primarily use scripting languages often tend to look at things differently.

Yes, if a person comes from only (either) one of those backgrounds - then they are more likely to look at things differently. But there are lots of people who have backgrounds in both (scripting/interpreted and compiled), and some have a lot of background in both, too.

On Saturday, 22 April 2017 at 08:30:03 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-04-21 at 17:20 +0000, Vasudev Ram via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>> Hi list,
>> 
>> I hope the question is self-evident from the message subject. If not, it means: what are D developers generally called (to indicate that they develop in D)? The question occurred to me somehow while browsing some D posts on the forums just now.
>> 
>> DLanger? DLangist? D'er? Doer? :)
>> 
>> I tend to favor DLanger, FWIW.
>
> I would hope none of these, but as ketmar said "programmer".

See my reply to Jonathan M Davis, above.

> Terms such as Pythonista, Rubyist, Rustacean, Gopher, etc. are terms of tribalism and exclusion. They are attempts to ensure people claiming membership of the tribe reject being polyglot by pressuring them to eschew all other languages.

I think you are over-generalizing, and don't fully agree. Definitely, some people may use those terms in that manner and for that reason. Boo to them :) I'm never in favor of such pressuring, exclusion or whatever. And BTW I know what I am talking about, having seen some of it in real life, one example being in the Ruby world. I did Ruby commercially for a while, learned it even before Rails was created or became popular. And I frequented the Ruby message boards and blogs for a while, and participated in them. Saw a lot of what you describe, others have written about it too. A good amount ofjuvenile and one-up-manship behavior. That is one reason why I moved to Python (apart from liking it after using it some). The community tended to me more mature and engineering-oriented, rather than like the Ruby people, many of whom were hackish and gloated over having done some cool stuff with Ruby "magic" or monkey-patching (which often results in hard-to-find bugs - cool for experimenting, bad for production use). As far as being polyglot is concerned, I'm quite in favor of that too, and would never dream of even suggesting, let alone pressuring, people to "eschew all other languages", as you put it (this is the point about which I don't agree and think you are over-generalizing). In fact, I do training too, and once, a student who was taking a Python course from me, was talking about his goals (he works in another field and is trying to get into development). As part of that, he mentioned wanting "to become a good programmer (Python)" - at which point I immediately replied to him, that his goal should not be to become a good _Python_ programmer, per se, but to become a good _programmer_, period, because there is much more to programming than one or even many languages - databases, use of libraries, software design, testing, debugging, use of source control and other tools, naming conventions, other programming conventions and style, etc.  Mentioned books like Code Complete to him - as a great resource on those lines.

And I'm a polyglot programmer myself, having worked on BASIC (learnt on home computers), Pascal, C, Java, Informix 4GL. Done real commercial work in all of those, apart from the same in both Ruby and Python. And even keep dabbling in new languages now and then. That's how I came across D, for example, which I like a lot - IIRC it was by reading some article in a computer magazine, could have been Dr. Dobbs.

> A good programmer can work professionally with a number of languages, the psychology of programming people have data supporting this theory – if the languages have different computational models.

Totally agreed.

> Thus I would claim to be a programmer currently working with D for the project I am working on just now, with SCons/Python for the build system. In a while it will be C++ on another project with CMake. Later still it will be C and Meson on a different project. Further on it will be Kotlin and Frege using Gradle for yet another project.

Same here. Language agnostic. It's the best way. Another anecdote - once, in a company where I worked and was managing a product team, I had a need to write a small reminder utility for my own use. The project was in C++ and Java (I worked on the Java side), but since I knew Python and it was a good fit for the tool, I did it in Python - in a few minutes. One of my team members wanted to do it too, so, since he only knew Java, when I told him I was doing it in Python and it would be done very fast, he smiled and said "I'll do it in Java" - and proceeded take more time than I did for the same functionality. Nor was there any performance or other requirement that necessitated Java - he did it because it was the only language he knew. "Use the right tool for the job" and all that ...

On Saturday, 22 April 2017 at 08:33:04 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-04-21 at 21:20 -0700, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>> 
> […]
>> I've never heard of anyone doing anything like this in any language.
>> Normally, you'd just say that someone is a D programmer or a C++
>> programmer
>> or a Java Programmer, etc. But then again, I come from a C++
>> background, not
>> a scripting language background, and the folks who primarily use
>> scripting
>> languages often tend to look at things differently.
>> 
>
> I guess most people using scripting languages are just Bashing things together.
>
> ;-)


Awk! What you sed? ;)

>just Bashing things together

Nice joke, but not necessarily true in reality. There could be people writing good solid code in scripting languages and the reverse in compiled ones too - in fact I've seen code of some very poor (in quality and knowledge) C developers, who know very little of the ins and outs of the language (pointers and memory management in particular, but other areas too). That's one of the reasons why we have so many buffer overflows and exploits, though of course, I acknowledge, it's not easy to write perfect C code that does not have those issues. I actually worked years ago, for a while, on a legacy banking software product written in C - in maintenance mode - after almost all the original developer team had left the company. Saw some really bad code. Variables like zzy123 were the least of it ... Not a reflection on the language at all, only on those developers.

On Saturday, 22 April 2017 at 17:37:13 UTC, Vasudev Ram wrote:

>I actually worked years ago, for a while, on a legacy banking software product written in C

In fact, that one was in Microsoft C for DOS 3.0 ... !!! :)

I actually also worked some years later on another product in C, which had some similar issues (but turned out quite well in the end, after I got involved with it as the team leader), but that was on Windows, and is another story, maybe will tell it some time later ...