http://hammerprinciple.com/therighttool/statements/this-language-is-best-for-very-large-projects

-- 
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

or http://hammerprinciple.com/therighttool/statements/when-i-write-code-in-this-language-i-can-be-very-s

On 25/03/2015 10:29 p.m., Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>
> http://hammerprinciple.com/therighttool/statements/this-language-is-best-for-very-large-projects

Huh, we come off pretty good. Makes me kinda question their research techniques.

On Wednesday, 25 March 2015 at 09:47:24 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
> or http://hammerprinciple.com/therighttool/statements/when-i-write-code-in-this-language-i-can-be-very-s

Interesting site.
The "DOES POORLY AT..." column is good reading here for how D could improve ( though some of the comments are stupid. D has an annoying syntax!?)
http://hammerprinciple.com/therighttool/items/d

On Wednesday, 25 March 2015 at 12:01:15 UTC, wobbles wrote:
> The "DOES POORLY AT..." column is good reading here for how D could improve ( though some of the comments are stupid. D has an annoying syntax!?)

doeas poorly at annoying syntax => not annoying syntax

On Wednesday, 25 March 2015 at 12:21:32 UTC, Martin Krejcirik wrote:
> On Wednesday, 25 March 2015 at 12:01:15 UTC, wobbles wrote:
>> The "DOES POORLY AT..." column is good reading here for how D could improve ( though some of the comments are stupid. D has an annoying syntax!?)
>
> doeas poorly at annoying syntax => not annoying syntax

Good catch. I was about to complain about the "The thought that I may still be using this language in twenty years time fills me with dread" until I realized that being under 'Does poorly' means that people DON'T think that. Actually, I'd like to think they think the opposite of that.

On Wednesday, 25 March 2015 at 12:21:32 UTC, Martin Krejcirik wrote:
> doeas poorly at annoying syntax => not annoying syntax

Yea, these charts are confusing, with the double negatives and the green up arrows next to negative aspects. A pro/con list would be much more clear.

On Wednesday, 25 March 2015 at 12:21:32 UTC, Martin Krejcirik wrote:
> On Wednesday, 25 March 2015 at 12:01:15 UTC, wobbles wrote:
>> The "DOES POORLY AT..." column is good reading here for how D could improve ( though some of the comments are stupid. D has an annoying syntax!?)
>
> doeas poorly at annoying syntax => not annoying syntax

This list isn't not confusing!

On Wednesday, 25 March 2015 at 09:29:40 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
>
> http://hammerprinciple.com/therighttool/statements/this-language-is-best-for-very-large-projects

Nice one - I wonder what people answered to "PROGRAMS WRITTEN IN THIS LANGUAGE WILL USUALLY WORK IN FUTURE VERSIONS OF THE LANGUAGE" ??? :)

We all know the answer to that question regarding the D programming language. :D

On Wednesday, 25 March 2015 at 09:47:57 UTC, Rikki Cattermole wrote:
> On 25/03/2015 10:29 p.m., Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>>
>> http://hammerprinciple.com/therighttool/statements/this-language-is-best-for-very-large-projects
>
> Huh, we come off pretty good. Makes me kinda question their research techniques.

Self-selection is never a good idea. Only 64 respondents have rated both D and C++...