On Tuesday, 31 May 2022 at 11:27:44 UTC, forkit wrote:
>
> But in my world, as it is, there is only one C# compiler I ever use.
>

Oh. And it's been that way for 22 years (less 5 months ;-)

On Monday, 30 May 2022 at 03:41:24 UTC, Ali wrote:
> https://forum.dlang.org/post/axslxubumvtrudpjfpng@forum.dlang.org
>
> I think its really bad, that this is the most active topic on the forum
>
>
> use a better forum sotware and moderate
> and when topics like this get too active just close the thread
> and archive it
>
> D have a small community
> these topics really drain the energy of the D community
>
> If a new forum is not an option (which i think it isnt)
> maybe let the forum run dry (i.e. dont reply, at least not to threads like this one),
> and switch to discord or slack

what nonsense. this sounds like something a Rustacean would say ;-)

It not unusual for a thread, to morph into a multithread. big deal.

if it bothers you, just don't read it.

when something on the news bothers me, I just switch it off. I don't complain about it being on the news.

also, 'why is D unpopular' is an emotive headline, that encourages a lot of response (either way). That's entirely expected.

That you just want to shut it down, cause it bothers you, is far more concerning to me, that the number of threads i need to read (most of which i don't, and in any case, I can choose not to if that is preference).

Could it be, that D is unpopular, because of statements like yours (wanting to shut down conversations when they get a little too active)?

At least I made an attempt to remain on topic ;-)

On Tuesday, 31 May 2022 at 10:27:11 UTC, forkit wrote:
> On Tuesday, 31 May 2022 at 08:48:54 UTC, bauss wrote:
>>
>>
>> C# doesn't have a single compiler, that was especially true before dotnet core, where you absolutely had to use other compilers if you wanted to write code for any other platforms than Windows.
>
> In the world I live in (which maybe different to yours), there is only one compiler for C# ;-)
>
> I'd argue the same is true for the majority of C# developers (not every single one, but a majority) - since the majority would have been developing on Windows anyway.
>
> When I goto the D download page, I have to immediately make a choice from one of three compilers, even for the same platform.

Those developing for Windows, that happen to also target UWP workloads, won't be able to use the same C# and .NET libraries without some caveats.

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/uwp/dotnet-native/net-native-and-compilation

And it remains to be seen what constraints Native AOT will bring to the table in .NET 7 versus .NET Native.

On Tuesday, 31 May 2022 at 10:20:00 UTC, forkit wrote:
> On Tuesday, 31 May 2022 at 09:19:46 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
>>
>> Unless you happened to have been like myself, working for a Microsoft certified partner with access to pre-release builds of .NET 1.0, those MSDN CDs with red documentation, I doubt the 22 years, but who's couting just a couple of months until October 2023.
>
> Yes, indeed, the company I worked for back then were an MCP, and they (the company) provided me with an *full* MSDN subscription (which was very expensive back then). This is precisely why I got on board with C# (or specifically, .NET) so early. I was already developing when it was in beta (and still use it today).
>
> Before that, it was... grr... grrr.. grrrrrr.... C!
>
> ....

Faire enough.

On Tuesday, 31 May 2022 at 11:27:44 UTC, forkit wrote:
> On Tuesday, 31 May 2022 at 10:47:13 UTC, bauss wrote:
>>
>> That's just ignorance at play.
>>
>
> Well you're sure being picky in what you respond to.
>
> But on *my* computer, I have only one compiler for C#. That's not ignorance, that's fact!
>
> Of course, I (still) program against .NET Framework, not .NET Core.
>
> I use VS if I need a gui in my app, but for console programs, I program in my own IDE which i developed myself (in C#!).
>
> But even if I programmed against .NET Core, instead of .NET Framework, I'd still only have one C# compiler on my computer (regardless of the platform i'm using).
>
> I'm not even aware of another compiler available to me, or why I'd even consider it.
>
> Now if I install .NET Core on my computer, then sure, I'd have 2 compilers for C# - but each targeting their own framework.
>
> But in my world, as it is, there is only one C# compiler I ever use.
>
> On the otherhand, even on the same platform (whether it's Windows or Linux - both of which i use extensively), I constantly switch between dmd and ldc, to help verify the behaviour of my program (cause I don't fully trust either compiler to do what it says its going to do). I also do it because I do not know enough about the possible 'implementation defined' behaviours in the D programming language.

I could use the exact same argument for D though.

I have only ever used DMD and that has been true for like over a decade.

So for me D only has one compiler :)

On Tuesday, 31 May 2022 at 02:47:21 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 02:07:53AM +0000, forkit via
>> With a single compiler, implementation defined behaviours, which would of course exist, are contained to the 'one' compiler, which has obvious benefits for developers, and their customers (and C# is a prime example), as well as the compiler developers and the language designers.
>
> The disadvantage is that the code will rely on said implementation-defined behaviours, resulting in vendor lock-in.

Apart from that, one can use multiple compilers to check if his/her code are standard compliant. Sometimes, I can find problems/bugs in my code that way, since different compilers provide different error / warning messages (esp. C++). If my code can pass all the compilers without warnings, my code is more likely to be robust.

On Tuesday, 31 May 2022 at 18:42:49 UTC, yl wrote:
> On Tuesday, 31 May 2022 at 02:47:21 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
>> On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 02:07:53AM +0000, forkit via
>>> With a single compiler, implementation defined behaviours, which would of course exist, are contained to the 'one' compiler, which has obvious benefits for developers, and their customers (and C# is a prime example), as well as the compiler developers and the language designers.
>>
>> The disadvantage is that the code will rely on said implementation-defined behaviours, resulting in vendor lock-in.
>
> Apart from that, one can use multiple compilers to check if his/her code are standard compliant. Sometimes, I can find problems/bugs in my code that way, since different compilers provide different error / warning messages (esp. C++). If my code can pass all the compilers without warnings, my code is more likely to be robust.

On the otherhand, when there is one compiler, which everyone uses, then that compiler has the opportunity to have been very well tested, over time, and hence vastly more reliable.

This is because users/developers/contributors would all using/contributing to the same source base, and hence, over-time, that source base is far better off because it doesn't have to compete with other source repositories.

So there are real world benefits in there being one compiler to rule them all.

Not that I'm making the argument for there to be one compiler, cause i'm not against multiple compilers - especially for certain languagers (like C/C++).

On Tuesday, 31 May 2022 at 13:11:30 UTC, bauss wrote:
>
>
> I could use the exact same argument for D though.
>
> I have only ever used DMD and that has been true for like over a decade.
>
> So for me D only has one compiler :)

No.I don't believe one can make the same argument for D.

Anyone interested in optimisation for performance, would not be using dmd ;-)

Whereas, it would be difficult for anyone to better (or even match) the performance of the Microsoft Visual C# compiler (csc.exe, not dotnet.exe).

Although even that compiler seems to have gotten noticably slower over time :-(

I can certainly make the case for why you'd want to use something other than dmd for compiling your D code.

I simply cannot make that case for the Microsoft Visual C# compiler (in my use-cases).

On Tuesday, 31 May 2022 at 11:53:32 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
> On Tuesday, 31 May 2022 at 10:20:00 UTC, forkit wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 31 May 2022 at 09:19:46 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
>>>
>>> Unless you happened to have been like myself, working for a Microsoft certified partner with access to pre-release builds of .NET 1.0, those MSDN CDs with red documentation, I doubt the 22 years, but who's couting just a couple of months until October 2023.
>>
>> Yes, indeed, the company I worked for back then were an MCP, and they (the company) provided me with an *full* MSDN subscription (which was very expensive back then). This is precisely why I got on board with C# (or specifically, .NET) so early. I was already developing when it was in beta (and still use it today).
>>
>> Before that, it was... grr... grrr.. grrrrrr.... C!
>>
>> ....
>
> Faire enough.

I was also one of the first adopters of Visual Basic for DOS (yes DOS, not Windows).

Sadly, if it wasn't from Borland, then nobody else in my circle at the time, would take it seriously :-(

But it set the stage for what was to some, that's for sure.

On Tuesday, 31 May 2022 at 21:46:11 UTC, forkit wrote:
> On Tuesday, 31 May 2022 at 13:11:30 UTC, bauss wrote:
>>
>>
>> I could use the exact same argument for D though.
>>
>> I have only ever used DMD and that has been true for like over a decade.
>>
>> So for me D only has one compiler :)
>
>
> Anyone interested in optimisation for performance, would not be using dmd ;-)
>

Anyone interested in optimisation for performance, would not be using C# ;-)