"J. Daniel Smith" <j_daniel_smith@deja.com> wrote in message news:a4ekba$2lo1$1@digitaldaemon.com...

> In the not too distant future, most "usual everyday routine coding" on a Windows platform will be done using a CLR-based (or .NET) language.  Being the "power language", C++ developers can choose to avoid the CLR
("unmanged"
> code), but VB developers (and there are a whole bunch of them) and C#
coders
> will both be using the CLR (and pretty much without even knowing about
it).
> And Microsoft claims there are lot more languages that are being ported by 3rd parties to the CLR.

We shall see... I personally doubt everything will be like this. I know that many, MANY C++ programmers hate C#, not even speaking about C ones...

> Given the competition C# (another new language on the Windows platform) I
> think the only way D has a chance for widespread acceptance (again, books
on
> D) is if it is build on top of the CLR.  C# seems to bring along a bit too
> much Java (Main() having to be a static function for example), and D has
> some really neat features; so I think there is a place for both - but D
> needs to be on the CLR.

I think this is only needed in distant future. VS.NET has just been released
officially, it's not wide-spread... and the .NET framework is also a new
thing. For now, it's just _safer_ to cover the entire set of Windows version
with usual compiler, than making something for CLR. So Win32 port goes
first.
Then, for D to beat C/C++, it must be portable as well, so a compiler for
*NIXes and such is needed. So Dfront... I believe Walter's priorities are
absolutely right!

Now is the time to think about D and the CLR; otherwise there is a good possibility that when the time comes D will have to make changes/additions to support the CLR - witness all the new __keywords in C++.NET.  Changes can be readily made to D now to support the CLR in a transparent manner like C# and VB, waiting makes that more difficult because at that point there will be legacy code issues, dfront compatibility, etc.



Like it or not, the "sweet spot" in software development is Windows programmers using VB or C++.  Sure, there are lots of people writing lots of code in many other environments, but as far as lines-of-code and/or number of developers, Windows/VB/C++ is clearly in the majority.  I don't think that focusing on running under various flavors of UNIX or Palm developers is the way to foster widespread adoption of D.



   Dan

"Pavel Minayev" <evilone@omen.ru> wrote in message news:a4gk2d$gqu$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> "J. Daniel Smith" <j_daniel_smith@deja.com> wrote in message news:a4ekba$2lo1$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>
> > In the not too distant future, most "usual everyday routine coding" on a Windows platform will be done using a CLR-based (or .NET) language.
Being
> > the "power language", C++ developers can choose to avoid the CLR
> ("unmanged"
> > code), but VB developers (and there are a whole bunch of them) and C#
> coders
> > will both be using the CLR (and pretty much without even knowing about
> it).
> > And Microsoft claims there are lot more languages that are being ported
by
> > 3rd parties to the CLR.
>
> We shall see... I personally doubt everything will be like this. I know that many, MANY C++ programmers hate C#, not even speaking about C ones...
>
> > Given the competition C# (another new language on the Windows platform)
I
> > think the only way D has a chance for widespread acceptance (again,
books
> on
> > D) is if it is build on top of the CLR.  C# seems to bring along a bit
too
> > much Java (Main() having to be a static function for example), and D has
> > some really neat features; so I think there is a place for both - but D
> > needs to be on the CLR.
>
> I think this is only needed in distant future. VS.NET has just been
released
> officially, it's not wide-spread... and the .NET framework is also a new thing. For now, it's just _safer_ to cover the entire set of Windows
version
> with usual compiler, than making something for CLR. So Win32 port goes
> first.
> Then, for D to beat C/C++, it must be portable as well, so a compiler for
> *NIXes and such is needed. So Dfront... I believe Walter's priorities are
> absolutely right!
>
>

Eiffel has already been ported to CLR.  I agree with Walter's current priority goals though.

Sean

"Pavel Minayev" <evilone@omen.ru> wrote in message news:a4gk2d$gqu$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> "J. Daniel Smith" <j_daniel_smith@deja.com> wrote in message news:a4ekba$2lo1$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>
> > In the not too distant future, most "usual everyday routine coding" on a Windows platform will be done using a CLR-based (or .NET) language.
Being
> > the "power language", C++ developers can choose to avoid the CLR
> ("unmanged"
> > code), but VB developers (and there are a whole bunch of them) and C#
> coders
> > will both be using the CLR (and pretty much without even knowing about
> it).
> > And Microsoft claims there are lot more languages that are being ported
by
> > 3rd parties to the CLR.
>
> We shall see... I personally doubt everything will be like this. I know that many, MANY C++ programmers hate C#, not even speaking about C ones...
>
> > Given the competition C# (another new language on the Windows platform)
I
> > think the only way D has a chance for widespread acceptance (again,
books
> on
> > D) is if it is build on top of the CLR.  C# seems to bring along a bit
too
> > much Java (Main() having to be a static function for example), and D has
> > some really neat features; so I think there is a place for both - but D
> > needs to be on the CLR.
>
> I think this is only needed in distant future. VS.NET has just been
released
> officially, it's not wide-spread... and the .NET framework is also a new thing. For now, it's just _safer_ to cover the entire set of Windows
version
> with usual compiler, than making something for CLR. So Win32 port goes
> first.
> Then, for D to beat C/C++, it must be portable as well, so a compiler for
> *NIXes and such is needed. So Dfront... I believe Walter's priorities are
> absolutely right!

"Sean L. Palmer" <spalmer@iname.com> wrote in message news:a4gvug$mj8$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Eiffel has already been ported to CLR.  I agree with Walter's current priority goals though.

I read (have not verified it myself) that Eiffel had to be subsetted to work
with CLR.

Walter wrote:

> Is there a .net future for D? Probably yes. But not now. First thing is a Win32 system. Then comes dfront. *Then* comes a CLR.

I agree with the priorities here.  Frankly, while CLR sounds really cool (and some people may be using it), it's not yet a proven technology...and if ActiveX and OLE are any examples, just because MS pushes something (and the editorials like it) doesn't mean it is going to become a cross-platform standard.

For now, the biggest target market is Win32.  Whether CLR becomes widely used or not, Win32 is a safe bet.  Later, as dfront comes out, if you want to use CLR, then use dfront and then use Microsoft's latest and greatest compiler to build CLR.

Now, I personally would prefer dfront over the Win32 version, so that I can start cross-platform UNIX/Windows development, but I know I'm in the minority, and am thus happy to wait. :)

Keep it up, Walter.  Hey, if the languages becomes very big, we won't need to write a D->CLR compiler; MS will do it for us!

--
The Villagers are Online! villagersonline.com

.[ (the fox.(quick,brown)) jumped.over(the dog.lazy) ]
.[ (a version.of(English).(precise.more)) is(possible) ]
?[ you want.to(help(develop(it))) ]

"Russ Lewis" <spamhole-2001-07-16@deming-os.org> wrote in message news:3C6C1C4D.AB3A04BA@deming-os.org...
> I agree with the priorities here.  Frankly, while CLR sounds really cool
(and
> some people may be using it), it's not yet a proven technology...and if
ActiveX
> and OLE are any examples, just because MS pushes something (and the
editorials
> like it) doesn't mean it is going to become a cross-platform standard.

I found out today that if a Win32 user does not have CLR installed, getting it is a 20+Mb download. For the time being, that makes it impractical for a D application developer to distribute his D executable over the web.

"Russ Lewis" <spamhole-2001-07-16@deming-os.org> wrote in message news:3C6C1C4D.AB3A04BA@deming-os.org...
> Walter wrote:
>
> > Is there a .net future for D? Probably yes. But not now. First thing is
a
> > Win32 system. Then comes dfront. *Then* comes a CLR.
>
> I agree with the priorities here.  Frankly, while CLR sounds really cool
(and
> some people may be using it), it's not yet a proven technology...and if
ActiveX
> and OLE are any examples, just because MS pushes something (and the
editorials
> like it) doesn't mean it is going to become a cross-platform standard.
>
> For now, the biggest target market is Win32.  Whether CLR becomes widely
used or
> not, Win32 is a safe bet.  Later, as dfront comes out, if you want to use
CLR,
> then use dfront and then use Microsoft's latest and greatest compiler to
build
> CLR.
>
> Now, I personally would prefer dfront over the Win32 version, so that I
can
> start cross-platform UNIX/Windows development, but I know I'm in the
minority,
> and am thus happy to wait. :)
>
> Keep it up, Walter.  Hey, if the languages becomes very big, we won't need
to
> write a D->CLR compiler; MS will do it for us!
>

ROTFL!  :)


--
Stijn
OddesE_XYZ@hotmail.com
http://OddesE.cjb.net
__________________________________________
Remove _XYZ from my address when replying by mail