Hi.

I'm seeing more press on D lately.  I think it's gaining some momentum.  However, the languages that made it in the past all seemed to have some killer application on which to ride to success.  For example:

Fortran: scientific computing
Lisp: AI
BASIC: Language for the masses
Pascal: Structured programming
C: Games and OSs
C++: OO programming, and GUIs
Java: Internet programming
Perl: Text processing
Cobol: Banking
SQL: Database
TCL: Embedded interpreter for tool control
Forth: Embedded systems/low overhead

I can't think of a language that I can get paid to use that doesn't have some killer application.  Just being a better language is the motivation behind most languages.  However, that doesn't seem to be enough to gain widespread acceptance.

I can't think of what D's killer application will be, but I don't think it will be any of the ones I've listed, since these already have so much momentum in other languages.

Any ideas?

Bill

You raise a great issue. How about 'robust programming', with the Design by Contract and unit test support?

"Bill Cox" <bill@viasic.com> wrote in message news:3F2689B9.5070608@viasic.com...
> Hi.
>
> I'm seeing more press on D lately.  I think it's gaining some momentum.
>   However, the languages that made it in the past all seemed to have
> some killer application on which to ride to success.  For example:
>
> Fortran: scientific computing
> Lisp: AI
> BASIC: Language for the masses
> Pascal: Structured programming
> C: Games and OSs
> C++: OO programming, and GUIs
> Java: Internet programming
> Perl: Text processing
> Cobol: Banking
> SQL: Database
> TCL: Embedded interpreter for tool control
> Forth: Embedded systems/low overhead
>
> I can't think of a language that I can get paid to use that doesn't have some killer application.  Just being a better language is the motivation behind most languages.  However, that doesn't seem to be enough to gain widespread acceptance.
>
> I can't think of what D's killer application will be, but I don't think it will be any of the ones I've listed, since these already have so much momentum in other languages.
>
> Any ideas?
>
> Bill
>

  I think two things are the most essential to
get people using D:
 - The kind of foundation library that C# has. I would
like to see this for both Windows and Linux, not just
Windows.
 - A fully integrated IDE for D:
	* An editor with all the current tricks.
	* Visual window and component editing
	would be very good, and I think doable
	in D.
	* A good class and project browser.
	* Project management and starter templates
	which people can use to get started creating
	applications and libraries.
	* A fully integrated debugger.
  I think basically programmers like to code and work
with good tools. From my perspective, D is the best
language solution for the time, incorporating all of
the features that I have been looking for since Java
was introduced. Package D with a modern development
environment and I think you would be giving programmers
a great incentive to adapt D.
  I may be speaking from a perspective of personal bias,
because this is what my thoughts have been running to
lately. I think it would be a great project.

Bill Cox wrote:
> Hi.
> 
> I'm seeing more press on D lately.  I think it's gaining some momentum.  However, the languages that made it in the past all seemed to have some killer application on which to ride to success.  For example:
> 
> Fortran: scientific computing
> Lisp: AI
> BASIC: Language for the masses
> Pascal: Structured programming
> C: Games and OSs
> C++: OO programming, and GUIs
> Java: Internet programming
> Perl: Text processing
> Cobol: Banking
> SQL: Database
> TCL: Embedded interpreter for tool control
> Forth: Embedded systems/low overhead
> 
> I can't think of a language that I can get paid to use that doesn't have some killer application.  Just being a better language is the motivation behind most languages.  However, that doesn't seem to be enough to gain widespread acceptance.
> 
> I can't think of what D's killer application will be, but I don't think it will be any of the ones I've listed, since these already have so much momentum in other languages.
> 
> Any ideas?
> 
> Bill
> 

"Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> a écrit dans le message news: bg64cv$1rhe$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> You raise a great issue. How about 'robust programming', with the Design
by
> Contract and unit test support?

Eiffel hold this position sir.

-- Nicolas Repiquet

Hi, Walter.

Robust programming is a possibility.  It's not a clear winner, but if I knew what the next big thing was, I'd go do a startup to make money on it.

Robust programming seems to work for Ada.  If robust programming were to be a big factor, I'd want to see a compiler test suite to help insure that bugs don't get into generated code.  That seems to be a big selling point for Ada.  I'll bet that the Ada commitee guys are thinging about design by contract and unit test now.

The US government seems to be sold on robust programming through Ada.  I wonder if it will make it into comercial industry.

Bill

Walter wrote:
> You raise a great issue. How about 'robust programming', with the Design by
> Contract and unit test support?
> 
> "Bill Cox" <bill@viasic.com> wrote in message
> news:3F2689B9.5070608@viasic.com...
> 
>>Hi.
>>
>>I'm seeing more press on D lately.  I think it's gaining some momentum.
>>  However, the languages that made it in the past all seemed to have
>>some killer application on which to ride to success.  For example:
>>
>>Fortran: scientific computing
>>Lisp: AI
>>BASIC: Language for the masses
>>Pascal: Structured programming
>>C: Games and OSs
>>C++: OO programming, and GUIs
>>Java: Internet programming
>>Perl: Text processing
>>Cobol: Banking
>>SQL: Database
>>TCL: Embedded interpreter for tool control
>>Forth: Embedded systems/low overhead
>>
>>I can't think of a language that I can get paid to use that doesn't have
>>some killer application.  Just being a better language is the motivation
>>behind most languages.  However, that doesn't seem to be enough to gain
>>widespread acceptance.
>>
>>I can't think of what D's killer application will be, but I don't think
>>it will be any of the ones I've listed, since these already have so much
>>momentum in other languages.
>>
>>Any ideas?
>>
>>Bill
>>
> 
> 
> 

"DeadCow" <deadcow-remove-this@free.fr> wrote in message news:bg652o$1s88$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>
> "Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> a écrit dans le message news: bg64cv$1rhe$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > You raise a great issue. How about 'robust programming', with the Design
> by
> > Contract and unit test support?
>
> Eiffel hold this position sir.

Eiffel pioneered DbC, yes. But Eiffel has not managed to evangelize DbC and bring it into the mainstream consciousness. Eiffel has no unit test support in the language or philosophy, although there is an add-on thing to do it called EiffelUnit.

"Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> a écrit dans le message news:

> Eiffel pioneered DbC, yes. But Eiffel has not managed to evangelize DbC
and
> bring it into the mainstream consciousness. Eiffel has no unit test
support
> in the language or philosophy, although there is an add-on thing to do it called EiffelUnit.

Here are my two cents ( in a broken english & with a broken brain )

You said "D is a real-life language for real-life programmers".

What a real-life programmer needs :

1) A nice language : well-designed, handy, and that helps avoiding pitfalls to write bugfree softwares ... and you have fun coding with =)

2) A good set of tools : compiler, linker, debuger, editor, ...

3) A standard library : common interfaces are realy mandatory. Im bored to
write adaptators to link different proprietary implementations ... so let
say for the very minimum : basic data structures ( List,Set,Tree,... ), text
processing ( regexp, complex formating ), logging ( very important i
think ), streams( file, pipe, socket, ... ), basic type manipulations ( Date
... ), synchronisation ( mutex, lock, semaphore, ... ), infinite precision
mathematics.

4) A lib repository & tools : handy, and do a realy good job for people
getting involved in projects ( CPAN is a real succes ).

Here are the ratting (min * max ***** ) for various languages ( in my
opinion ) :

- C++ : The real headache
1 language)   ***    A way to complicated, realy archaic.
2 tools)      *****  Great tools available ( even free ) including dmc =)
3 stdlib)     *      Bored implementing your own chainlist ?
4 repository) *      none

- Java : The tiny toy
1 language)   ****   Some lacks.
2 tools)      ****   Well, its interpreted.
3 stdlib)     ****   Not perfect, but kind of =)
4 repository) *      none

- Perl : The geek experience
1 language)   *      Personnal taste : too cryptic
2 tools)      *****  How they can compile that ?
3 stdlib)     **     I realy dont like
4 repository) ****   Really good idea

- D : The big hope
1 language)   *****  Great !
2 tools)      ****   Im waiting for a debuger
3 stdlib)     **     Well, its only a test am i right ?
4 repository) *      none

I think the D's killer application is the same that C++ : big & fast software. But C++ users need more sexy features for jumping to D.

-- Nicolas Repiquet

I don't agree with all of your analysis.

Bill Cox wrote:
> I'm seeing more press on D lately.  I think it's gaining some momentum.
>   However, the languages that made it in the past all seemed to have
> some killer application on which to ride to success.  For example:
> 
> Fortran: scientific computing

This wasn't a killer application. Just a strength in numerical applications.

> Lisp: AI

Ok.

> BASIC: Language for the masses

That's pretty vague. BASIC was a simple high level language on early "PC"s like Commodore PET or APPLE II.

> Pascal: Structured programming

That's not a killer application. Wirth gave the academic authority but only UCSD and Turbo PASCAL made real world programming possible.

When MS languages were expensive ($300-500) and error-ridden, Turbo Pascal at $50 made programming for anybody affordable.

> C: Games and OSs

The only real killer application was and is UNIX.

> C++: OO programming, and GUIs

Only filled the void of stagnating C.

> Java: Internet programming

More the "Internet hype". The Java applet never became a reality.

> Perl: Text processing

> Cobol: Banking

Commercial applications.

> SQL: Database

SQL is not a programming language.

> TCL: Embedded interpreter for tool control

Don't know.

> Forth: Embedded systems/low overhead

Small systems. Astronomers. Never really took off.
(like MUMPS for medical applications)

> I can't think of a language that I can get paid to use that doesn't have some killer application.  Just being a better language is the motivation behind most languages.  However, that doesn't seem to be enough to gain widespread acceptance.
> 
> I can't think of what D's killer application will be, but I don't think it will be any of the ones I've listed, since these already have so much momentum in other languages.
> 
> Any ideas?

While I don't think that your killer application hypthesis really holds, it would surely be a way to push D forward.

I see these possible killer applications:

   - An open source equivalent to MS ACCESS for small database
     applications (remember that Linux OFFICE systems misses the
     database component)

   - A small foot print Windows/Linux compatible development system
     including database component (rivalling Delphi/Kylix) and
     good integrated print/preview/report system.

   - An efficient Wiki server/client system including a client side
     wiki and a client WYSIWYG browser/editor.

   - An open source e-Book application with user definable display
     options and good support for book printing in definable formats.

--
Helmut Leitner    leitner@hls.via.at Graz, Austria   www.hls-software.com

DeadCow wrote:
> Here are the ratting (min * max ***** ) for various languages ( in my
> opinion ) :

> - C++ : The real headache
> 3 stdlib)     *      Bored implementing your own chainlist ?

You *vastly* underrate STL. STL is *the* thing, which makes C++ into a really usable programming language. And of course it contains all kinds of lists, maps, sets, ... Just name it. Very few minor omissions. And here comes a surprise: STL sort algorithm is an order of magnitude faster than C's qsort, because it specialises an algorithm by types, instead of using function pointers for simple operations. Expect maximum efficiency from them. :)

Now, you consider it worse than a D library and a Perl library?


-i.

> 3 stdlib)     *      Bored implementing your own chainlist ?

You're dreaming here, for all the reasons Ilya gives and more.

> I think the D's killer application is the same that C++ : big & fast software.

Agree

> But C++ users need more sexy features for jumping to D.

Agree