"Nick Sabalausky" <a@a.a> wrote in message news:j51ia4$2ivm$1@digitalmars.com...
>
> ("It's kinda like moving from C++ to C#,

That is, "C# and/or XNA".

> except you don't have that 5% performance hit, you have all this metaprogramming and concurrency stuff C++ and C# don't have, and you're not locked into MS platforms.").
> 

"Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisProg@gmx.com> wrote in message news:mailman.2921.1316239886.14074.digitalmars-d@puremagic.com...

> I definitely prefer D to C++, but I honestly think that your hatred of
> C++
> (which you have expressed on several occasions) clouds your judgement
> on the
> matter. Many, many programmers are fine with C++, and while many
> programmers
> may like C++ to be improved or would like a language that's similar to
> C++ but
> without as many warts, that doesn't mean that they're going to be in a
> hurry
> to try out D. And many, many of the people who have problems with C++
> use
> languages such as C# and Java instead and are fine with that. D has a
> major
> uphill battle to truly become as relevant as any of those languages are
> regardless of how much better it may be.
>

There is something wrong with that last sentence. Especially since in the preceding material that I snipped, you noted that the compilers for D are not up to snuff. You seem to be noting its deficiencies but wanting it to be "better" somehow, maybe for some of it's "neat features"? Perhaps D just has to grow up before it can battle anywhere, let alone on hills?

"Nick Sabalausky" <a@a.a> wrote in message news:j51h52$2h0e$1@digitalmars.com...
> "Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisProg@gmx.com> wrote in message news:mailman.2921.1316239886.14074.digitalmars-d@puremagic.com...
>> On Saturday, September 17, 2011 01:53:07 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>> People who are *good* at C++ are hard to find, and even harder to
>>> cultivate.
>>> And that's never going to change. It's a fundamental limitation of
>>> the
>>> langauge (at least until the Vulcans finally introduce themselves to
>>> us).
>>> But D's a lot easier for people to become good at.
>>
>> It's a _lot_ easier to find good C++ programmers than good D programmers,
>
> Oh, definitely. But what I meant was that good D programmers can be cultivated. People can learn to be good at D. And while the same might *technically* be true of C++, the curve is so steep that it may as well be "what's out there is what's out there". It's, more or less, a non-renewable resource.

It's not nearly as "steep" as it used to be, for C++, the tools, the techniques, the documentation, the users have matured and one need not struggle through everything on one's own anymore while learning it, but rather just go look up or ask for the answer, and it is still improving. Sure, if one exploits every "stupid template trick" and similarly with the other language features, then you will have "steep", but it is quite tractable these days if one isn't overzealous and able to separate all the jabber about "metaprogramming" and the like from the meat of the language. It will always have its warts, but D has many of the same ones.

> I realize I've said this other times in the past, but I find that the compiler bugs in DMD are much less severe than the language deficiencies of a fully-bug-free C++ implementation.
>

That's an interesting, if not odd, statement considering that C++ are more alike than they are different.

> Plus there's the idea of investing in the future to keep in mind: It's like the old quote: "I may be fat, but you're stupid. I can excersise and diet, but stupid will always be stupid."

The truth of the matter is, though, that she won't exercise to any significant degree and has been on a diet her whole life and her weight has continually increased. On top of that, the fact that one can study, research and learn escapes the fat dumb blonde bimbo because she indeed is stupid, and that's why her "dieting" causes her to gain weight instead of lose it.

>  D may have some bugs, but investing the effort to deal with them will
> lead to further improvements. Dealing with C++'s problems, OTOH, will
> hardly do a damn thing.

Again, I find that a curious statement for reason noted. The language names even fit together: C/C++/D. There is no denying that they are all related. Just look at those noses! C'mon!

> Sure, a few things can be mitigated somewhat, such as the C++0x^H^H1x^H^H2x^H^H3x improvents. But in general, investing the effort to deal with C++'s shortcomings won't lead to significant improvements - it *can't* because it's constrained by its existing legacy design (not that that won't eventually happen to D, too, but D is one generation past C++).

One generation away, but still the same family. So what?

>  Ie., D may be buggy, but C++ is crappy. Bugs can be fixed, but crappy
> will always be crappy.

All adolescents conflict with their parents and say things like that. When D grows up, the D++ or E kids will be maligning D and then D will remember back how it was just the same when it was just a youngster.

>>
>> I definitely prefer D to C++, but I honestly think that your hatred of
>> C++
>> (which you have expressed on several occasions) clouds your judgement
>> on the
>> matter.
>
> FWIW, I had been a huge fan of C++ for many years and used it extensively ('course, that was quite awhile ago now...). And I *do* think it was a great language back in it's time. I just think that time is long since past.

I think C++ is now coming into it's own and it sucked in the past much more. D is now in it's sucky period IMO, and may have it's day in the future. Time will tell.

> When I say "C++ is crappy", I mean "within today's context, and moving forward from here".

Tomorrow is surely something else, probably not D, IMO, but today is all C++.

> I'm certainly aware of all that, and I do understand. But the question here wasn't "Do you think OTHER people feel language X is suitable for serious work?" It was "Do YOU think language X is suitable for serious work?" I don't doubt other people would disagree with me (especially people who haven't used D, and even probably some who have), but my own answer is "Yes, I think D is suitable for such projects, and in such a situation, yes, I would be willing to put my money where my mouth is."

Ha! I inadvertently just answered those questions. Well, I guess you know what I think now (not that I was going to hide it).

On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 5:30 PM, Nick Sabalausky <a@a.a> wrote:
>
> Keep in mind, most of a AAA game's codebase is externally-developed middleware these days. I think the middleware development sector would be willing to fix those issues if it meant being able to provide a more competitive offering (ie, their customers can use an easier to use/learn language, and don't need as many C++ gurus, etc).
>

You need high performance code gurus, the need for C++ people in non-performance critical code is already alleviated by the scripting world.

I disagree with your middleware statement too, most middleware at this level is created by in house teams and then sold on for other titles. For example CryEngine, Unreal Engine, id tech, source engine. Other AAA engines are used entirely in-studio for example IW's engine(s) for the CoD series games and Frostbite for the newer battlefield games. The other problem with this idea is that the middleware needs to play nice with other middleware like physics libraries, ai libraries and other specialised bits of software like speedtree, which typically are written in C++.

All of these layers need to be highly tuned for performance across many platforms including the console world.

At this level the switch to C# provides much more than a 5% performance hit too, it makes the whole thing unfeasible. My feeling is that the same is true of D due mostly to immature tooling.

The indie world however, is much more accommodating, the budgets are lower and programmer productivity more important. Their performance requirements are much lower and their willingness to play with new tools is much greater. Make these guys happy and then down the track the rest of the gaming world might follow.

On Saturday, September 17, 2011 02:26:12 Xavier wrote:
> "Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisProg@gmx.com> wrote in message news:mailman.2921.1316239886.14074.digitalmars-d@puremagic.com...
> 
> > I definitely prefer D to C++, but I honestly think that your hatred of
> > C++
> > (which you have expressed on several occasions) clouds your judgement
> > on the
> > matter. Many, many programmers are fine with C++, and while many
> > programmers
> > may like C++ to be improved or would like a language that's similar to
> > C++ but
> > without as many warts, that doesn't mean that they're going to be in a
> > hurry
> > to try out D. And many, many of the people who have problems with C++
> > use
> > languages such as C# and Java instead and are fine with that. D has a
> > major
> > uphill battle to truly become as relevant as any of those languages are
> > regardless of how much better it may be.
> 
> There is something wrong with that last sentence. Especially since in the preceding material that I snipped, you noted that the compilers for D are not up to snuff. You seem to be noting its deficiencies but wanting it to be "better" somehow, maybe for some of it's "neat features"? Perhaps D just has to grow up before it can battle anywhere, let alone on hills?

The language itself is superior. It's the implementation which has issues, though those have been being resolved at a fairly fast pace of late.

- Jonathan M Davis

"Nick Sabalausky" <a@a.a> wrote in message news:j51ef3$2a0d$1@digitalmars.com...
> "Xavier" <xman@nospam.net> wrote in message news:j50v3o$1gbb$1@digitalmars.com...
>>
>> I think the public schools are "teaching" "how to be a sheeple". What other reason could there be?
>
> Although I probably have about zero business sense, I absolutely agree on this part of what you said.
>
> At one point, I went to Bowling Green State University, well known to be an "accept anyone and everyone even if we don't have enough room" party school. Most of the students there generally thought for themselves (even if most of them weren't particularly bright.)
>
> Then I transfered to John Carroll University: a private school that, well, it's no Ivy-league, but it's fairly well-regarded, at least around the Cleveland area. Unlike BGSU, JCU is known to be fairly selective. But the vast majority of JCU students were complete mindless sheep. I'm being completely honest when I say it was actually somewhat disturbing how sheep-like they were. Of course, they were also just as dumb as the BGSU students, but unlike BGSU, most of them were uppity, conceited and had a noticeable tendency to mistake slogan and lecture regurgitation for intelligence, ability and independent thought.
>
> Conclusion: High schools specifically cultivate sheeple, which is a quality preferred by "respectable" colleges.
>
> I couldn't begin to speculate on why it's this way, or whether or not it's intentional by anyone who's still around. But whatever the reason, that's definitely how things are.
>

The most surprising thing to me is that it seems to work! It could be that most people simply are not very smart from the get go so they believe everything they read and are told and trust anyone and everyone. That's not it. (Well at first it may be, but surely at some point one becomes able to discern information of value from BS). It's not an intelligence thing. It's something else. I think I know what it is, but this is not the place to get into it. I do think that some of it shows thru a little in some of my posts. Then again, maybe the fat blonde bimbo is skinny now and I'm still stupid. Nah, that's not it. Certainly not.

"Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisProg@gmx.com> wrote in message news:mailman.2923.1316247041.14074.digitalmars-d@puremagic.com...
> On Saturday, September 17, 2011 02:26:12 Xavier wrote:
>> "Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisProg@gmx.com> wrote in message news:mailman.2921.1316239886.14074.digitalmars-d@puremagic.com...
>>
>> > I definitely prefer D to C++, but I honestly think that your hatred
>> > of
>> > C++
>> > (which you have expressed on several occasions) clouds your
>> > judgement
>> > on the
>> > matter. Many, many programmers are fine with C++, and while many
>> > programmers
>> > may like C++ to be improved or would like a language that's similar
>> > to
>> > C++ but
>> > without as many warts, that doesn't mean that they're going to be in
>> > a
>> > hurry
>> > to try out D. And many, many of the people who have problems with
>> > C++
>> > use
>> > languages such as C# and Java instead and are fine with that. D has
>> > a
>> > major
>> > uphill battle to truly become as relevant as any of those languages
>> > are
>> > regardless of how much better it may be.
>>
>> There is something wrong with that last sentence. Especially since in
>> the
>> preceding material that I snipped, you noted that the compilers for D
>> are
>> not up to snuff. You seem to be noting its deficiencies but wanting it
>> to
>> be "better" somehow, maybe for some of it's "neat features"? Perhaps D
>> just has to grow up before it can battle anywhere, let alone on hills?
>
> The language itself is superior.

A family of languages goes from "crappy" to "superior" in one generation? Umm, I don't think so, "fan boy". ;)

> It's the implementation which has issues,
> though those have been being resolved at a fairly fast pace of late.

It's not just that, though I believe that you think that.

On Saturday, September 17, 2011 03:17:27 Xavier wrote:
> "Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisProg@gmx.com> wrote in message news:mailman.2923.1316247041.14074.digitalmars-d@puremagic.com...
>
> > The language itself is superior.
> 
> A family of languages goes from "crappy" to "superior" in one generation? Umm, I don't think so, "fan boy". ;)

??? I didn't say anything about the family of languages. I said that D, as a language, is superior to C++.

- Jonathan M Davis

"Xavier" <xman@nospam.net> wrote in message news:j51jsp$2lln$1@digitalmars.com...
>
> "Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisProg@gmx.com> wrote in message news:mailman.2921.1316239886.14074.digitalmars-d@puremagic.com...
>
>> I definitely prefer D to C++, but I honestly think that your hatred of
>> C++
>> (which you have expressed on several occasions) clouds your judgement on
>> the
>> matter. Many, many programmers are fine with C++, and while many
>> programmers
>> may like C++ to be improved or would like a language that's similar to
>> C++ but
>> without as many warts, that doesn't mean that they're going to be in a
>> hurry
>> to try out D. And many, many of the people who have problems with C++ use
>> languages such as C# and Java instead and are fine with that. D has a
>> major
>> uphill battle to truly become as relevant as any of those languages are
>> regardless of how much better it may be.
>>
>
> There is something wrong with that last sentence. Especially since in the preceding material that I snipped, you noted that the compilers for D are not up to snuff. You seem to be noting its deficiencies but wanting it to be "better" somehow, maybe for some of it's "neat features"? Perhaps D just has to grow up before it can battle anywhere, let alone on hills?

In both this and your other post, you're conflating the notions of the "language quality" vs "implementation quality". The two are not the same. Now, yes, D effectively has one implementation (the DMD frontend), but even considering that, the notions are still worth separating:

For one thing, implementation quality is much easier to improve than language quality. An implementation deficiency can always be fixed. But a language deficiency can usually only be fixed if it's an additive change, which: #1 Rules out all non-additive improvements, and #2 Often forces an inferior solution to be used, creating language cruft.

Secondly, it *IS* possible, and not at all uncommon, for a language deficiency to be MORE severe than an implementation deficiency. For example, updating header files and keeping them in-sync with the implementation is far more time consuming than working around any of the bugs in D's module system. Another: Certain details about C++ *force* the language to be slow-to-compile. That CANNOT be improved. As a consequence, many C++ projects take hours to compile. Unless you shell out the $$$ for a distributed-compilation cluster. Either way, that's much more costly than dealing with any D bug I've come across in the last year (yes, there were some severe ones in the past, but those are now fixed).

So no, it's NOT a contradiction that D can be a better language while still having implementation issues.

"Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisProg@gmx.com> wrote in message news:mailman.2924.1316247900.14074.digitalmars-d@puremagic.com...
> On Saturday, September 17, 2011 03:17:27 Xavier wrote:
>> "Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisProg@gmx.com> wrote in message news:mailman.2923.1316247041.14074.digitalmars-d@puremagic.com...
>>
>> > The language itself is superior.
>>
>> A family of languages goes from "crappy" to "superior" in one
>> generation?
>> Umm, I don't think so, "fan boy". ;)
>
> ??? I didn't say anything about the family of languages.

I know you didn't, I did. Read my post in response to Nick's post.

> I said that D, as a
> language, is superior to C++.
>

Yeah, yeah... OK "fan boy". ;)