Stewart Gordon wrote:
> Richard Koch wrote:
>> tried to get d as the language of choice (daring) for a card projrct. it took almost 4 month with my ordering, threatening and ...
>>
>> things died because of
>>
>> 1.) no gui lib with builder
> 
> Which platform are you developing for?
> 
> For Windows, look at SDWF.  It doesn't need its own builder, because it's designed to work with Windows resources.  So you can design your dialogs, menus, etc. in a Windows resource editor.
> 
> http://pr.stewartsplace.org.uk/d/sdwf/
> 
>> 2.) any other language had usable libs, extensions and standard algos
> 
> What do you mean by this?
> 
>> 3.) competing standard libraries
> 
> D has only one _standard_ library.  What are you talking about?
> 
>> 4.) no foreseeable releases (such as 1.0)
> 
> Languages are seldom born ready for 1.0.
> 
>> most horrifying was the lack of an integrated editor debugger thingy.
> <snip>
> 
> Give it chance.
> 
> Stewart.
> 

first of all - language problem!!


me giving it, - D,  a chance? Absolutely!
I love D, i try to push it, - sometimes even to enforce it by virtue of being primus inter paris.

But, here is what i was up against (other then the 4 poeple not including me):

project:
	smart card usage -  no problem
	Server
	client
	strong encryption
	1/2 year to develop


critique of my com padres:
	no environment, like visual studio, not even a community effort 			to get all those single proggies to run in uestudio or 				any thing like it.
	All the efforts of the community seemed to crawl or being 				stopped. If they were not stopped, the releases were 				missing, just update via subversion ...
	no crypto/security libs
	no real easy db access
	no reflection
	gui is still undecided, the favorite dfl, has no data aware 			 controls, - development is sporadic
	no such thing as java.util or c# equivalent
	versions (while awaiting 1.0) gets extensions – produces always 			awha (being amazed)
	superiors – everything is still in flux
	....


an oder by muffti did not work for more than 4 month , since they complained to my superior.

richard


p.s

everybody loved the possibilities of D, but not the prospect the of it ever getting into a state of an application programming language.

D is not - and should not be a bodice for some imagination of some introductory paragraph of a documentation.
you can do anything with D - i just lost for now.

Fredrik Olsson wrote:
> Richard Koch skrev:
> 
>> most horrifying was the lack of an integrated editor debugger thingy.
>>
>> as a user i think it is becoming at least deterring
>>
> What is wrong with Emacs and gdb?
> 
> Why not try out Walters own debugger tips at:
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/windbg.html
> I am quite sure that if it is good enough for Walter, it is good enough for you and me.

Holy moly.  I just tried out the WinDbg debugger.  That thing crashes like a madman.  I couldn't keep it running for more than a few minutes at a time.  It really doesn't seem to like displaying certain assembly code, in particular.

I don't know how Walter manages to put up with it.  Definitely not even close to being a serious replacement for visual studio's debugger.

--bb