Why is D unpopular? (page 39)

On Tuesday, 3 May 2022 at 07:29:24 UTC, Max Samukha wrote: > 1. Can't make it a normal function, because it needs to be usable with -betterC, and ~= prevents that. > 3. Can't make it a lambda, because there's no way to express variadics for lambdas without loosing IFTI. *losing 3 -> 2 (CTFE is big. Editable forum posts would be huge.)

On Tuesday, 3 May 2022 at 03:55:34 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: > On 5/2/2022 7:34 AM, claptrap wrote: >> Genius isn't having the idea, it's more often than not making the idea work. > > Yup. I've heard endless arguments that Edison didn't really invent the light bulb, the Wrights did not invent the airplane, Musk did not invent reusable rockets, etc. > > An idea ain't worth spit if it is not implemented. I disagree. There would have been no light bulb or reusable rocket if not for the hard mental and physical work of thousands of people who will never get due credit. > > The value in D's CTFE is after we demonstrated it, it suddenly became a "must have" feature in the other mainstream native languages. Sorry for being a nuisance, but D was not the first to demonstrate it. It's a fact.

On Tuesday, 3 May 2022 at 08:42:03 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:

Equating entrepreneurship with genius is an american thing. The US doesn't really have a unifying cultural identity, symbols of capitalism has become the unifier. You see it all the time in US media, money becomes culture (symptoms: Kardashians, Paris Hilton, Donald Trump etc).

Most reasonable people would reserve the term "genius" to people who's intellectual work far surpass what comes after: Bach, Einstein, Aristoteles etc… Has nothing to do with business at all.

(An no, Bill Gates, Elon Musk, Steve Jobs does not qualify.)

Yeah, it's fun to hear Musk saying something like "it's useless to think about things that cannot be turned into a product", while all his products are using the results of the intellectual work that people like him considered useless a century ago.

May 03, 2022

Re: Why is D unpopular?

Posted by Ola Fosheim Grøstad
in reply to FeepingCreature

Permalink

Ola Fosheim Grøstad

Posted in reply to FeepingCreature

Permalink

On Tuesday, 3 May 2022 at 10:28:19 UTC, FeepingCreature wrote:

Musk in it. I do think there's a value-add there. You need entrepreneurs with a combination of business sense and product focus - that's actually pretty rare.

Not really. Every country has thousands if not millions of entrepreneurs, but few of them have the capital to grow fast. Where you have large gains you also have high risks, when you take high risks you usually also need luck. Why was my country flooded by Teslas when they launched? It was because the Norwegian government had removed taxes on electric cars and allowed them to drive in the bus/taxi lane, so Teslas became "cheap" luxury cars… You cannot plan for that kind of luck. When media tell tales about success they tend to ignore the timing, luck and not having the competition launch a submarine product that undermines your own product. For every success story there are many failures that did roughly the same things, and the source for failure can be as simple as not having the funds to do marketing.

People who run fast is also not very rare, but there is only one person who runs faster than everyone else. That person will take it all. If you remove the fastest runners, you still have plenty of people that run fast. So I don't buy your argument here.

If you remove Intel, we will still have fast computers. If you remove Apple we will still have good mobile phons. If you remove Google we will still have high quality search. If you remove Microsoft we will still have good cloud computing services. Etc. Etc. Etc. If you remove Apple, Microsoft and Amazon, very little will change, because the same people will work for some other entity filling the void.

Forums