On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 14:43:35 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
> Really? I just don't see it as that big of a deal. Again, three subdomains are using D right now. So it's not like it's not being used at all. Moving the website to D just hasn't been a priority (nor should it be, IMO). Anyone in the community who *does* feel it's important is certainly free to put together a prototype and pitch it to the core team. I would ask their thoughts about it first, though, before embarking on such a project.

I can definitely see and relate to your points.  You're using sound arguments when making decisions about software in general.  However, I think you have to consider the emotional impact of this.  If you walked into a printer company and found out they didn't use their own printers, what would that say to you?  Since dlang.org is the face of the D programming language, it's going to be the first thing people use to judge it.  IMO that makes it a big deal.

On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 14:57:11 UTC, Jonathan Marler wrote:
> However, I think you have to consider the emotional impact of this.

nodejs.org's homepage is served by nginx. D is general purpose, node is specifically web.

Nobody seems to care (probably because using nginx is the recommended way to do a production deployment anyway!)

On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 14:45:58 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
> What does that have to do with the website? The forum software is written in D and has a reputation for performance. This is simply a matter of it not popping up on anyone's radar and has nothing to do with the GC or performance hits.

Jonathan pointed out that people loose confidence when projects don't use their own tech if they have it. If this was just a single datapoint it would be a non-issue, but when it is a tendency, then it is a marketing issue.

The forum-index http header report:

Server:nginx/1.4.6 (Ubuntu)

People check out stuff like that. The forum backend also use a standard NNTP server, not implemented in D? That's ok too as there is no D forum software... but having many data-points like that is not good if you want to positions yourself as suitable for hosting websites.

Just like writing special cased memory management for DMD is not good marketing of D's ability to support fast memory management out of the box.

It is better to take a performance hit and show statistics of how you improve over time. People react more negatively to stagnation than absolute numbers.

People do notice. One data-point, ok. Many data-points, bad.

On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 15:05:54 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
> People check out stuff like that. The forum backend also use a standard NNTP server, not implemented in D? That's ok too as there is no D forum software...

it's even more than that: D servers are using OS which is not implemented in D!

On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 15:04:24 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
> On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 14:57:11 UTC, Jonathan Marler wrote:
>> However, I think you have to consider the emotional impact of this.
>
> nodejs.org's homepage is served by nginx. D is general purpose, node is specifically web.
>
> Nobody seems to care (probably because using nginx is the recommended way to do a production deployment anyway!)

Node.js is widely deployed, they don't need any marketing or showcases. Vibe.d and D does.

That is a major difference.

On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 15:18:27 UTC, ketmar wrote:
> On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 15:05:54 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
>> People check out stuff like that. The forum backend also use a standard NNTP server, not implemented in D? That's ok too as there is no D forum software...
>
> it's even more than that: D servers are using OS which is not implemented in D!

If D had their own OS then that would have been an issue, yes. Just like if Redhat had used Debian on their servers. Oh... you were trying to be funny...? ha...

On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 15:23:58 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
> On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 15:18:27 UTC, ketmar wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 15:05:54 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
>>> People check out stuff like that. The forum backend also use a standard NNTP server, not implemented in D? That's ok too as there is no D forum software...
>>
>> it's even more than that: D servers are using OS which is not implemented in D!
>
> If D had their own OS then that would have been an issue, yes. Just like if Redhat had used Debian on their servers. Oh... you were trying to be funny...? ha...

i'm trying to hint that there is no reason to reimplement *everything* in D. bad engineers reinvent, good engineers reuse!

On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 15:31:34 UTC, ketmar wrote:
> i'm trying to hint that there is no reason to reimplement *everything* in D. bad engineers reinvent, good engineers reuse!

This is about marketing, not engineering.

Walter is arguing that vibe.d should be distributed with the compiler. If it is good enough to get semi-official status it makes you wonder why it isn't showcased on dlang.org?

Same thing with memory management. If memory management in D is not a problem, why is it then a problem to use the standard memory management in the official D compiler, a non-interactive batch-application?

Compare this to:
- We are using our own web framework, out-of-the-box, compile-and-run.
- We are using our own standard library/runtime, unmodified.

And it works great!
No need to dig deep to get decent performance!

On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 15:05:54 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
> The forum-index http header report:
>
> Server:nginx/1.4.6 (Ubuntu)
>
> People check out stuff like that.

Yeah, and that's an industry-standard production deployment.

But perhaps we should just change the server line for the people who do look at it. No need to change the deployment, just the apache/nginx config to spit out something different.

On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 15:40:48 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
> On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 15:31:34 UTC, ketmar wrote:
>> i'm trying to hint that there is no reason to reimplement *everything* in D. bad engineers reinvent, good engineers reuse!
>
> This is about marketing, not engineering.

nope, it is about engineering. as long as D is not backed by some giant like google or apple, it is about engineering.