Yigal Chripun Wrote:

> personally I don't see a point in JVM/.NET - One of the best things about D is that you get the ease of use of Ruby/python/etc with the benefits of native compiling like in c/c++. Why throw that away and make yet another version of Java/C# ?

Supporting .net would give you access to the most modern and probably best-currently-supported Windows API. It would, if you counted Mono, add a very nice cross-platform UI framework. Finally, depending on what version was supported, it might enable you to write Silverlight apps in D, permitting flash-like apps that run cross-functionally in a web browser.

TK

Tim Keating wrote:
> Yigal Chripun Wrote:
>
>> personally I don't see a point in JVM/.NET - One of the best
>> things about D is that you get the ease of use of Ruby/python/etc
>> with the benefits of native compiling like in c/c++. Why throw that
>> away and make yet another version of Java/C# ?
>
> Supporting .net would give you access to the most modern and probably
> best-currently-supported Windows API. It would, if you counted Mono,
> add a very nice cross-platform UI framework. Finally, depending on
> what version was supported, it might enable you to write Silverlight
> apps in D, permitting flash-like apps that run cross-functionally in
> a web browser.
>
> TK
>

You missed my point entirely. One of the major benefits of using D is that you get the convinience of Ruby/Python and the speed of a natively compiled language. using D on .net removes this very important benefit.
All the things you mentioned above can be acomplished already with C# or any other .net language (visual C++) with the support of MS and all the tools already available for it.
the most important benefit of D is the fact that it's natively compiled. remove that and you'll get a roughly equivalent language to C#. at least that's my opinion.

Reply to Yigal,

> One of the major benefits of using D is
> that you get the convinience of Ruby/Python and the speed of a
> natively compiled language. using D on .net removes this very important
> benefit. All the things you mentioned above can be acomplished already
> with C# or any other .net language (visual C++) with the support of MS
> and all the tools already available for it. the most important benefit of D
> is the fact that it's natively compiled. remove that and you'll get a roughly equivalent language to C#.
> at least that's my opinion.

On advantage of D for .NET would be that is would allow for using existing code to be hooked into .NET apps. I don't think that writing new apps in D for .NET would be wise but bringing existing apps into .net would be good.

OTOH there might be a niche for D as an unsafe .NET language.

Hello Tim,

> Yigal Chripun Wrote:
> 
>> personally I don't see a point in JVM/.NET - One of the best things
>> about D is that you get the ease of use of Ruby/python/etc with the
>> benefits of native compiling like in c/c++. Why throw that away and
>> make yet another version of Java/C# ?
>> 
> Supporting .net would give you access to the most modern and probably
> best-currently-supported Windows API. It would, if you counted Mono,
> add a very nice cross-platform UI framework. Finally, depending on
> what version was supported, it might enable you to write Silverlight
> apps in D, permitting flash-like apps that run cross-functionally in a
> web browser.
> 
> TK
> 


Agreed.

Concerning .NET and D technology, I say go for it... especially if someone has the initiative to keep such a port going (afterall, such initiative is really the most important virtue for any hope of success).  For myself, I'm kind of learning not to "restrain" D with my personal biases.  Sometimes we just can't predict what kind of benefits might be in store for the language, the platform, or other people; such expiditionary moves might not be successful in themselves, but they could be the critical factor that brings D to the limelight in some future endeavor.

D may be successful in areas we don't necessarily predict or prefer, and .NET is just one of several interesting possibilities to explore.  Therefore, I don't think we should get too tunnel-visioned about "D is better because it's a compiled language".  It may be important to keep the vision a little more open to other technologies (like VM's and such) especially as optimizations improve in these areas.  Otherwise, D will be at risk of loosing it's general purpose nature... and being permanently fixated as a niche language.  Porting to .NET, therefore, becomes a clever way of "proving" D's viability on other technology platfroms.

I haven't used C#, but I can bet that D could offer a very competitive and comfortable programming environment such that it would be a welcome alternative even in the .NET world.  Microsoft may even come to see the benefits, since D might attract an even more diverse audience to the platform, people who would have otherwise avoided it.  You never know. ;)

That'd probably be all it would take for me to start experimenting with .NET and Mono.

-JJR

John Reimer wrote:
> Hello Tim,
> 
>> Yigal Chripun Wrote:
>>
>>> personally I don't see a point in JVM/.NET - One of the best things
>>> about D is that you get the ease of use of Ruby/python/etc with the
>>> benefits of native compiling like in c/c++. Why throw that away and
>>> make yet another version of Java/C# ?
>>>
>> Supporting .net would give you access to the most modern and probably
>> best-currently-supported Windows API. It would, if you counted Mono,
>> add a very nice cross-platform UI framework. Finally, depending on
>> what version was supported, it might enable you to write Silverlight
>> apps in D, permitting flash-like apps that run cross-functionally in a
>> web browser.
>>
>> TK
>>
> 
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> D may be successful in areas we don't necessarily predict or prefer, and .NET is just one of several interesting possibilities to explore.  Therefore, I don't think we should get too tunnel-visioned about "D is better because it's a compiled language".

I agree. I don't see the point of VM's, but D should be better because it's a better language. Not because of how the compiler is implemented.

Don wrote:
> John Reimer wrote:
>> Agreed.
>>
>> D may be successful in areas we don't necessarily predict or prefer, and .NET is just one of several interesting possibilities to explore.  Therefore, I don't think we should get too tunnel-visioned about "D is better because it's a compiled language".
> 
> I agree. I don't see the point of VM's, but D should be better because it's a better language. Not because of how the compiler is implemented.

Not only do I agree as well <g>, but I want to emphasize John's point that we can't predict what opportunities will come from D being on .NET. I've run into a lot of programmers lately who, if a language isn't on .NET, will not look at it. .NET has a huge and growing market presence. There are a lot, and I mean a lot, of .NET developers, and to ignore them is shortsighted.

I can almost guarantee that people will find surprisingly cool uses to put D.NET to. Look at all the things Don has done with string mixins that never occurred to me!

Aside from that, the more platforms D is on, the more 'real' the language will be, and the more confident developers will be in risking using it.

"Walter Bright" <newshound1@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:gj519n$1ckg$1@digitalmars.com...
>
> I've run into a lot of programmers lately who, if a language isn't on .NET, will not look at it.

This right here is absolute proof of how appallingly pathetic the average quality of programmers is, and just how firmly up their asses their heads are planted. As much of a need as we have for better languages, I'm convinced that need is completely dwarfed by the need for better programmers.

And frankly, I'm not so sure that such clearly incompetent fools should be encouraged in such tenancies. I say, if someone is so bone-headed as to refuse to look at a language for such a stupid reason, they *should* be forced to stick with increasingly subpar languages. They's the only thing that will lead to their demise. We need to save our field from these fucking morons, not encourage them.

(And no, I'm not complaining about .NET itself, or .NET languages.)

Hello Nick,

> "Walter Bright" <newshound1@digitalmars.com> wrote in message
> news:gj519n$1ckg$1@digitalmars.com...
> 
>> I've run into a lot of programmers lately who, if a language isn't on
>> .NET, will not look at it.
>> 
> This right here is absolute proof of how appallingly pathetic the
> average quality of programmers is, and just how firmly up their asses
> their heads are planted. As much of a need as we have for better
> languages, I'm convinced that need is completely dwarfed by the need
> for better programmers.
> 
> And frankly, I'm not so sure that such clearly incompetent fools
> should be encouraged in such tenancies. I say, if someone is so
> bone-headed as to refuse to look at a language for such a stupid
> reason, they *should* be forced to stick with increasingly subpar
> languages. They's the only thing that will lead to their demise. We
> need to save our field from these f****** morons, not encourage them.
> 
> (And no, I'm not complaining about .NET itself, or .NET languages.)
> 


Hey, Nick, you just snubbed a whole bunch of people and severed all hope of demonstrating D's usefulness to anyone. ;)  I'm guessing a lot of us here have acted the "morons" in various similar ways when we make a weak attempt at argument when things are pushed at us.


Putting it bluntly, that's also the exact attitude that will distance people from the language.  Show disdain for them, and you are guaranteed to alienate people no matter how strong your argument is.  That, and such disdain is usually not warranted because it is reactive to a shallow response and fails to recognize the deeper social issues hinted by such a response.


Incidentally, labelling them "incompetant fools" isn't a very strong argument anyway, but you know that. ;D


> I say, if someone is so
> bone-headed as to refuse to look at a language for such a stupid
> reason, they *should* be forced to stick with increasingly subpar
> languages.


You probably realize this, but it's rarely so simple as that.  Sometimes people make weak silly arguments in response to people pushing things on them.  Their reasons for holding onto a technology rather than exploring other possibilities may be more related to survival and livelihood than sound reason (well, then again, survival and livelihood may be very good "reason" :-) ).  Their argument for rejection may be just a weak form of saying "go away... life is hard... don't bother me with this stuff."  Even so, there is a sort of logic contained in their response:  make D viable on the platform they know brings in the money, and you may just get their attention.  


There are a whole lot of people that aren't risk-takers for very good reason; the D community just seems to have attracted the more maverick adventurous personalities: we probably look like a bunch of extreme sports fanatics from their perspective  :).  Just because others give lame responses to why they won't explore a new language, doesn't mean they are all losers.  I expect that others might consider us to be morons for wasting so much time on D.

-JJR 

John Reimer wrote:
> Putting it bluntly, that's also the exact attitude that will distance people from the language.  Show disdain for them, and you are guaranteed to alienate people no matter how strong your argument is.  That, and such disdain is usually not warranted because it is reactive to a shallow response and fails to recognize the deeper social issues hinted by such a response.

Back in the early DOS days, there was a lot of disdain for the platform. "Real" programmers used unix workstations, not toy 16 bit PCs. It turned out, though, that most of the fortunes were made programming for DOS, and eventually those programs and programmers migrated to 32 bits and brought the industry with it. DOS was the "gateway" programming platform.

Hello Walter,

> John Reimer wrote:
> 
>> Putting it bluntly, that's also the exact attitude that will distance
>> people from the language.  Show disdain for them, and you are
>> guaranteed to alienate people no matter how strong your argument is.
>> That, and such disdain is usually not warranted because it is
>> reactive to a shallow response and fails to recognize the deeper
>> social issues hinted by such a response.
>> 
> Back in the early DOS days, there was a lot of disdain for the
> platform. "Real" programmers used unix workstations, not toy 16 bit
> PCs. It turned out, though, that most of the fortunes were made
> programming for DOS, and eventually those programs and programmers
> migrated to 32 bits and brought the industry with it. DOS was the
> "gateway" programming platform.
> 


Good point.  I remember the DOS days well.  Interestingly, though, "Unix" didn't really lose out in the long run.  A few years later, the movement returned in the form of Linux.  And then those "Real" programmers apparently had a chance to express their disdain again. :-)

All I know is that, as a teenager, I used to chafe over the limitations of 16-bit DOS when my computer was clearly 32-bit capable, and I was greatly urked at the strength of the industry that kept it so.  That is what caused me to track down one of the first Slackware linux releases (pre 1.0).  I just couldn't stand wasting my computer's potential. :-)

As it so happened, each path experienced success in completely different ways and different times, while other paths were lost forever.  But, in line with the reasoning not to disdain different opportunities for D, adopting technologies in different paths also makes sense in the interest of "diversifying to reduce risk."  It works for computer languages too. :)

-JJR