On Monday, 18 December 2023 at 14:08:19 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
> On Sunday, 17 December 2023 at 12:32:13 UTC, Hors wrote:
> How many is "a lot" actually, we literally only have two sponsors, many of dead projects in DUB and hardly seeing new projects registered (only to get abandoned after a few months or even a few weeks).
There are only two kinds of languages: the ones with many dead projects and the ones nobody use.
> Also telling they get the job done "quietly", are you trying to hide the fact dlang is nearly dead
It doesn't add anything to the conversation to make ridiculous claims like this with no evidence. Calling D "nearly dead" indicates you're not making a good faith effort to participate in a discussion.
> and say "they just do it quietly", Dlang's libraries are really limited, you either have to write from scratch, or interop with another language (which will usually require to write some bridge code by hand)
You weren't using Python in the 1990s. You couldn't do a heck of a lot with it. Someone spent a lot of time writing a lot of libraries between then and now. They didn't post complaints, they wrote code. Then once they wrote all those libraries, other people used them.
> > I wonder how many of those folks are really serious about using the language
Are you telling me I'm not even serious about using the language? Then why I'm even writing here?
My goal is not calling dlang is bad, but I think potential of dlang is being wasted, that's why I am writing here.
What will help this language at this point is working on libraries, documentation, tutorials, etc.
It's been +10 year and there's reasons why not many people wants to make libraries for Dlang. from GrimMaple's point:
> I would've lied if I said you can't use @nogc code in GC code. But in a reasonably sized framework (eg UI framework) @nogc will start bringing in too much issues eventually. Delegates is just one of the things where @nogc issues are apparent. If you want to have a @nogc control in a UI framework and have callbacks/events in it, you are going to force the user of that control to use @nogc code.
The less apparent issue with @nogc are interfaces\subclasses. If you have a @nogc in your interface, you're kind of forcing @nogc onto all of the users of that interface:
GrimMaple is the author of dlangui, and talking about why writing libraries in D is not a good experience.
From me: all languages haves something to offer, like python is beginner friendly, C was the master of it's time, Rust allows you to write good performant and safe code. But I can't really see whats D has to offer, D has many features of course, but when you using libraries, you may need to throw away half of the D.
Another comment by GrimMaple:
> And it's not like building tools/3rd party for D is a good idea anyway. Since the language can't decide what it wants to be, and you end up having to either overengineer your code, either listen to a lot of complaints how your code is unsupported in certain cases.
GrimMaple here again talks about why writing libraries in D is not a good experience.
If you want developers to use and write libraries for your language, you need to have something good and stable to offer them.