3 ms·

I'm curious, why don't you want to do the switch to D2? Is it because it's not mature enough?

steveklabnik 17y ago
First of all, D2 is not mature at all. It's like asking "Is C++0x mature enough?" Secondly, lots of people won't ever switch to D2, even when it's done, because they feel that it adds a lot of feature bloat for very little gain.
- ponce 17y ago
  I don't think many-cores compatibility is a little gain.
  - steveklabnik 17y ago
    That's a compiler issue, not a language issue.
    - ponce 17y ago
      A language without purity / proper constness / powerful static checking will not be automatically parallelized.
    - h3r3tic 17y ago
      Wrong. D2 has features to ease multi-threaded development, so it's a language 'issue'.
Keyframe 17y ago
There are several reasons. I'll try to list them, but it might not be complete: - D2 looks and feels foreign to me as a somewhat D1 experienced user - Templates maelstrom and strong emphasis on them - D1 grew organically, D2 looks like an academic exercise where stuff is put in just for the sake of it by the people that don't write programs in D at all (Andrei) - D2 book and Andrei are a filibuster for D2 - Walter Bright listens to Andrei (ok, a smart guy) but he doesn't write D programs, I doubt even Walter writes them (seriously). If you look at his code, it is more of a C in D than D code. - I have little to no trust in DMD/OPTLINK, LDC/LLVM is what I'm after and that front is D1 only, and looks like it will be - Lots of people smarter than I am are on D1 also (Tango, namely) - and I don't want to go against the trend since it would isolate me from little support I can get these are just of top of my head, there are more. General summation could lead to "It just doesn't feel right" - at least for me as a heavy D1 user.
- eldar 17y ago
  I wouldn't be that confident. D1 is a dead-end. If you ask a C++ user, he wouldn't drop C++ and a damn lots of libraries, IDE's, debuggers and industry support for it. I recently talked to my C++ friend writing scientific multithreaded stuff, and he was only convinced by D2. Templates are the killer feature of D. There is nothing wrong in the emphasis on them. Yes I agree that there are problems in D2. But there are much more problems in D1. If I were you, I wouldn't do such an anti-advertisement campaign here. Instead you could have pointed at what you think are the problems with D2. That would be more constructive.
- eldar 17y ago
  >> ...the people that don't write programs in D at all (Andrei) >> Walter Bright listens to Andrei (ok, a smart guy) but he doesn't write D programs You stated twice that he doesn't write D programs. Well since you are mentioning Tango, it's unfair because he writes code for a _standard_library_. And he is writing a good code.
  - baxissimo 17y ago
    I also don't think it's true. In addition to writing code for the std.* Phobos library, I think Andrei has been using D for data processing stuff related to his recently finished dissertation. He would make comments from time to time about this or that not performing well enough in std.*, and then go fix it.
  - ponce 17y ago
    Walter rewrited his game Empire in D.
- ponce 17y ago
  Maybe you could have a read at Modern C++ Design by Andrei. A mind expanding book with incredible insight in meta-programming. All this "template maelstrom" makes sense and is unavoidable to have powerful and expressive statically-typed languages.

First of all, D2 is not mature at all. It's like asking "Is C++0x mature enough?" Secondly, lots of people won't ever switch to D2, even when it's done, because they feel that it adds a lot of feature bloat for very little gain.

ponce 17y ago
I don't think many-cores compatibility is a little gain.
- steveklabnik 17y ago
  That's a compiler issue, not a language issue.
  - ponce 17y ago
    A language without purity / proper constness / powerful static checking will not be automatically parallelized.
  - h3r3tic 17y ago
    Wrong. D2 has features to ease multi-threaded development, so it's a language 'issue'.

Keyframe 17y ago

There are several reasons. I'll try to list them, but it might not be complete: - D2 looks and feels foreign to me as a somewhat D1 experienced user - Templates maelstrom and strong emphasis on them - D1 grew organically, D2 looks like an academic exercise where stuff is put in just for the sake of it by the people that don't write programs in D at all (Andrei) - D2 book and Andrei are a filibuster for D2 - Walter Bright listens to Andrei (ok, a smart guy) but he doesn't write D programs, I doubt even Walter writes them (seriously). If you look at his code, it is more of a C in D than D code. - I have little to no trust in DMD/OPTLINK, LDC/LLVM is what I'm after and that front is D1 only, and looks like it will be - Lots of people smarter than I am are on D1 also (Tango, namely) - and I don't want to go against the trend since it would isolate me from little support I can get these are just of top of my head, there are more. General summation could lead to "It just doesn't feel right" - at least for me as a heavy D1 user.

eldar 17y ago
I wouldn't be that confident. D1 is a dead-end. If you ask a C++ user, he wouldn't drop C++ and a damn lots of libraries, IDE's, debuggers and industry support for it. I recently talked to my C++ friend writing scientific multithreaded stuff, and he was only convinced by D2. Templates are the killer feature of D. There is nothing wrong in the emphasis on them. Yes I agree that there are problems in D2. But there are much more problems in D1. If I were you, I wouldn't do such an anti-advertisement campaign here. Instead you could have pointed at what you think are the problems with D2. That would be more constructive.
eldar 17y ago
>> ...the people that don't write programs in D at all (Andrei) >> Walter Bright listens to Andrei (ok, a smart guy) but he doesn't write D programs You stated twice that he doesn't write D programs. Well since you are mentioning Tango, it's unfair because he writes code for a _standard_library_. And he is writing a good code.
- baxissimo 17y ago
  I also don't think it's true. In addition to writing code for the std.* Phobos library, I think Andrei has been using D for data processing stuff related to his recently finished dissertation. He would make comments from time to time about this or that not performing well enough in std.*, and then go fix it.
- ponce 17y ago
  Walter rewrited his game Empire in D.
ponce 17y ago
Maybe you could have a read at Modern C++ Design by Andrei. A mind expanding book with incredible insight in meta-programming. All this "template maelstrom" makes sense and is unavoidable to have powerful and expressive statically-typed languages.