On Wednesday, 7 August 2019 at 10:25:47 UTC, Ethan wrote:
>
> Why did C# get picked up? Because Microsoft.
>
> Why did Swift get picked up? Because Apple.
>
> Why did Dart and Go get picked up? Because Google.
>
> Why did Rust get picked up? Because Mozilla.

Python? <-- CWI.nl
Python? <-- CNRI.reston.va.us

Indeed we need a sugar daddy :_)

On Wednesday, 7 August 2019 at 12:36:53 UTC, Bert wrote:
> But you are one person who has decided to use D in that regard, and funny how you didn't strictly do it in D alone! That actually says a lot about D.

Actually, it says a lot more about modern software development.

I don't care what language a library was written in. I 100% don't. It's irrelevant. All I care about is if it has a C/C++ ABI that I can hook in to.

.NET assemblies can be understood in any .NET language. The approach I've taken with Binderoo is to make Binderoo libraries generate an interface for any supported language. Similar approach to .NET there, self describing libraries that don't rely on the language it was originally written in.

Name mangling is a well understood and defined thing on any modern. It's feasible that one could write a .h/.di/.cs/etc definition generator given any arbitrary compiled .dll/.so/.dylib.

There's no reason a WPF-quality framework couldn't be written in D. But why bother if I can just bind to one?

Take my point one step further: Why has no one written a WPF-quality visual framework in C or C++? Or, if they have, why is it not more well known and in wider use?

(When I say WPF quality. Understand that its standard widgets can be customised in a HTML-style manner. All I need is an easily customisable layout engine that's native. HTML5 is not performant enough for my needs yet.)

> .NET is "complete" basically anything you want to do and you can do it, it has a few things that are not, it's almost entire performance related and meta programming related. If C# had D's performance and D's meta programing I would be using C#. You would be too... and that is a problem for D, not C#.

I've often said around these parts that the .NET runtime is the best in class. And it is not at all dependent on C#. It just expects your compiler to target .NET.

We have LDC. Someone sitting down and starting up D.NET and integrating it in to the .NET Core ecosystem would be fantastic. Then you could write D code in the .NET environment and get access to the .NET runtime.

One thing that bothers me is the fear of breaking code and perpetuating bad design.

C++ motto is exactly this, they don't break code and they keep with backwards compatibility.

Some will say this motto was the reason of the success of C++. I don't know, I think the real reason was compatibility with C and OO back in the day, since the next contender was Java (I'm talking about 90's).

But look how horrible C++ is, a lot of developers say this too.

Imagine there is o topic on Bjarne's website explaining: "Should I put "const" before or after the type?"

Some of Bjarne's answers:

"I put it before, but that's a matter of taste. "const T" and "T const" were - and are - (both) allowed and equivalent. For example:
	const int a = 1;	// ok
	int const b = 2;	// also ok"

"Why? When I invented "const" (initially named "readonly" and had a corresponding "writeonly"), I allowed it to go before or after the type because I could do so without ambiguity. Pre-standard C and C++ imposed few (if any) ordering rules on specifiers.

I don't remember any deep thoughts or involved discussions about the order at the time."


Unfortunately that persists till today.

Rust will try another thing, every 2~3 years they will revise their design and if needed they will indeed break things.

We will see how this will end.

I think D with a very smaller user base than C/C++/Java should be guided by better design even it will break code, yes it's hard but I'd prefer a nice and clear one than another C++ language.

Maybe D3?

Sasha.

On Wednesday, 7 August 2019 at 13:54:46 UTC, Ethan wrote:
> On Wednesday, 7 August 2019 at 12:36:53 UTC, Bert wrote:
> ....
>
> Take my point one step further: Why has no one written a WPF-quality visual framework in C or C++? Or, if they have, why is it not more well known and in wider use?
>
> ...

They have.

Long before Qt was a thing, C++ Builder with VCL.

It never picked much steam, because Borland went astray and the company that own it nowadays is happier to sell to corporations with deep pockets instead of indie devs.

Then naturally Qt, QML is in fact kind of inspired on XAML just with JavaScript based language instead of XAML.

Then there is UWP, first with C++/CX, now being rebranded as WinUI and being implemented in C++17 with C++/WinRT framework.

Qt is not in wieder use due to religious C++ devs against moc and many want free beer for their tools, but since they want to get paid, don't like the dual licensing scheme from Qt.

As for UWP it is Windows 10 only, and many devs don't want to compromise on that.

On Tuesday, 6 August 2019 at 16:50:10 UTC, GreatSam4sure wrote:
> On Tuesday, 6 August 2019 at 14:25:05 UTC, Suliman wrote:
>> Personally I moved from D, to Dart because it's more look like D3. A lot of modern and useful futures.
>
> You have move way to dart what is still keeping you around. Will you be a gain to the dart community. Will the D community miss you?

The D language and community, in my humble opinion, seem to attract a lot of beginners looking for the silver bullet

And from far D,it does seem to fit that claim, a reputation of strong meta-programming (a program that write program, yay super advanced stuff), it have Walter Bright, Andrei Alexandrescu two seasoned uber programmers working on it
For many it also a language that is trying to be as Powerful as C++, yet simpler

D seem to attract a lot of beginner or average programmers, looking for a secret weapon, a shortcut, a leverage point .. that will put them magically in the ranks of the uber programmers

And when they realize it is not, they vent their frustration in the forum and contribute very little to the community ... which is very negative for D

On Wednesday, 7 August 2019 at 13:54:46 UTC, Ethan wrote:
> [snip]
>
> We have LDC. Someone sitting down and starting up D.NET and integrating it in to the .NET Core ecosystem would be fantastic. Then you could write D code in the .NET environment and get access to the .NET runtime.

I think Laeeth had done some very preliminary work calling .net code [1]. I don't know anything about the status though.

[1] https://github.com/symmetryinvestments/dotnetcore-d

On Wednesday, 7 August 2019 at 15:13:50 UTC, jmh530 wrote:
> I think Laeeth had done some very preliminary work calling .net code [1]. I don't know anything about the status though.
>
> [1] https://github.com/symmetryinvestments/dotnetcore-d

Yes, I already do this in Binderoo. It's a critical piece of infrastructure for the program I talk of.

But simply calling .NET code is not what I mean. I mean making D a first-class language in the .NET ecosystem by providing a front-end to the .NET compiler.

On Wednesday, 7 August 2019 at 06:26:34 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 8/6/2019 7:23 PM, Mike Parker wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 7 August 2019 at 00:36:19 UTC, Exil wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 6 August 2019 at 23:55:11 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>>>
>>>> The imminent failure of Zortech C++ was also constantly predicted by pretty much everyone, meanwhile Zortech was pretty successful.
>>>
>>> They weren't wrong, Zortech C++ doesn't exist anymore. While C++ is still going strong.
>> 
>> Zortech was bought by Symantec and they rebranded the compiler to Symantec C++. It's now Digital Mars C++, still very much alive, and the backend was reused in DMD.
>
> Not only that, Zortech C++ is the reason C++ itself reached the tipping point and became mainstream.

I mean anyone can make claims without data proving it. Even without Zortech C++ C++ would have gotten to the point it is at now.

On Wednesday, 7 August 2019 at 02:23:17 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
> On Wednesday, 7 August 2019 at 00:36:19 UTC, Exil wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 6 August 2019 at 23:55:11 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>>
>>> The imminent failure of Zortech C++ was also constantly predicted by pretty much everyone, meanwhile Zortech was pretty successful.
>>
>> They weren't wrong, Zortech C++ doesn't exist anymore. While C++ is still going strong.
>
> Zortech was bought by Symantec and they rebranded the compiler to Symantec C++. It's now Digital Mars C++, still very much alive, and the backend was reused in DMD.

Right DMC is all but dead, its only used in D for Windows releases which causes it to have a plethora of bugs because it's dead and no one is actively developing it.

That backend is the reason people look to LDC.

On 08/07/2019 04:33 AM, Paulo Pinto wrote:

> Sorry to say it like this, but Zortech wasn't relevant in Europe, if at
> all.

One stats point: The only Zortech copy that I've ever seen was on my friend's desk in Turkey. Must be 1987 or 1988.

Ali