That we can’t have I guess I should provide direct links to rss too. Not much of a nice design this blog has yet.

RSS link: http://www.techper.net/feed/
Atom link: http://www.techper.net/feed/atom/

They all redirect to a feedburner url though, which is: feed://feeds2.feedburner.com/TechPer

I quite like D, but my major disappointment is the closed source 32-bit only compiler of Walter’s, and the slow development pace of the open alternatives. I think the language is great, and it’s certainly improving.. I’d choose it over C++ any day. Right now I’m waiting for the public releases to just “work” with both Phobos and Tango (competing base libraries, but historical conflicts) and some bugs in Tango to be worked out. The development tools for the majority are definitely lacking at this point, but they’ll get there, slowly but surely.

Yes, I didn’t look at D so far, that is true. But I learned more than 10 programming languages in more than 20 years. I am simply tired of starting from fresh again and again taking months until you can get really productive. And I am even more tired of being the beta tester of another thing that is outdated when the first stable release is out.

And I evaluated different languages for months before deciding to go with Java for new projects. Not really got into action should I learn D now? What next? E? – My boss wanted me to learn C#. When I have choosen Java he told me that it is also ok – none of the two is an error because both have big market. If I now tell him I want to learn D he will be angry because he already wants to see results for the market.

I had also spent about half a day getting an idea of aspect oriented programming. Didn’t really understand some basic example and finally I didn’t either found out what that real benefit is. Maybe I am putting here too many things into the same drawer, but the point is: The customer doesn’t care about that. He wants working and stable software that is cheap. Hence IDE and libraries are much more important than

I think effort should go more into creating useful libraries for existing languages.

I have no doubt, that new languages with more features could evolve and maybe there will remain only a hand full of developers in the world understanding them completely. I do not assume that C#, Java, C++ or whatever is born to be the best programming language ever. But: Who cares? – If I tell a customer Java is the perfect language he will believe – same applies for C++. What matters is the results and the time that is needed to get there. – And also there are developers needed who understand the language and the code. Hence a programming language should also be kept simple so more developers can understand.

In other words: If you know C/C++ and want to learn functional programming, go pick up Haskell, Scheme or whatever functional language you want.
If you’re a programmer who already knows several paradigms, use D and you can program imperatively when that’s the best solution, functional if that’s better, and so on.

You only ask if it’s possible to do–you didn’t say D didn’t or couldn’t do it. Personally I think it does a pretty good job–and you never really enumerated *why* D isn’t for you. It’s just as suitable for applications as it is for systems programming.

I like the idea of separate languages that can share the same class library and can be easily linked together much better.

If you think D covers little more than what Java can offer (ignoring JVM/GC), then you haven’t got a true impression of D at all. C# is a much more similar language in that regard.

As pure languages go (ignoring available libraries and tools this time), I would take D over Java for _any_ type of development.

There are reasons to not use D if you don’t have time to get into it, or maybe contribute, but you appear to have no knowledge whatsoever to make a qualified statement about D.

I don’t have a single idea. And I either don’t know why people always try to reinvent the wheel. Why not just improve the existing? – And by this I do not think there is sooo much space for a program language to improve in the kernel. I don’t think that completely new ways to address software development can heal the developer’s wounds. Not everything new is necessarily better (often the opposite is the case – those things are just alpha things).

To talk about the wounds: They are at completely other locations – e.g. poor standard libraries or missing important methods in the standard libraries (don’t understand why .NET only accepts one character in the split method – so what if I have a string separated by two filter characters for instance).

Or another wound is GUI design which is always a lot of work and many IDEs do lack here. – Yeah, talking about the IDEs – a good IDE is very important for the efficiency in the software development process. Many languages lack of good IDEs. I have compared many languages searching for the one to use with the first priority of being very efficient and the second of interoperability with other languages and systems.

And there are several new ways – e.g. the aspect oriented programming where the big benefit is in doubt from my point of view.

When I look back the last 15 years it is very clear for me that the quality of the IDE, the efficiency of GUI building and the amount of existing good quality libraries (core libraries, self created during the years and 3rd party) are the major keys to efficient software development that customers are willing to pay.

So if you have to indent blocks or write brackets, if you write object oriented or functional does not make the real difference – you get used to the particular syntax after a few weeks of intensive use.