www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - my demise

reply Richard Koch <dr.richard.koch t-online.de> writes:
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
2.) any other language had usable libs, extensions and standard algos
3.) competing standard libraries
4.) no foreseeable releases (such as 1.0)

most horrifying was the lack of an integrated editor debugger thingy.

as a user i think it is becoming at least deterring


richard


ps

even so i forced people for a long time, we are doing it noe in c# (kind 
   of kills me)
Oct 18 2006
next sibling parent Alexander Panek <a.panek brainsware.org> writes:
Ad 1):
There's DFL for Windows with Entice as a great 'form designer':
http://www.dprogramming.com/dfl.php
http://www.dprogramming.com/entice.php

Alex

On Wed, 2006-10-18 at 23:15 +0200, 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
 2.) any other language had usable libs, extensions and standard algos
 3.) competing standard libraries
 4.) no foreseeable releases (such as 1.0)
 
 most horrifying was the lack of an integrated editor debugger thingy.
 
 as a user i think it is becoming at least deterring
 
 
 richard
 
 
 ps
 
 even so i forced people for a long time, we are doing it noe in c# (kind 
    of kills me)

Oct 18 2006
prev sibling next sibling parent reply clayasaurus <clayasaurus gmail.com> writes:
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
 2.) any other language had usable libs, extensions and standard algos
 3.) competing standard libraries
 4.) no foreseeable releases (such as 1.0)
 
 most horrifying was the lack of an integrated editor debugger thingy.
 
 as a user i think it is becoming at least deterring
 
 
 richard
 
 
 ps
 
 even so i forced people for a long time, we are doing it noe in c# (kind 
   of kills me)

For 3), what's so bad about competition that stops you from doing work with D? For 4) True enough, although it feels like that D 1.0 is right around the corner.
Oct 18 2006
parent Bill Baxter <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> writes:
clayasaurus 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
 2.) any other language had usable libs, extensions and standard algos
 3.) competing standard libraries
 4.) no foreseeable releases (such as 1.0)

 most horrifying was the lack of an integrated editor debugger thingy.

 as a user i think it is becoming at least deterring


 richard


 ps

 even so i forced people for a long time, we are doing it noe in c# 
 (kind   of kills me)

For 3), what's so bad about competition that stops you from doing work with D? For 4) True enough, although it feels like that D 1.0 is right around the corner.

I think you're right. There are always going to be things that can be improved. A big 1.0 total-feature-freeze-no-new-incompatibilities-ever release is never going to happen so that shouldn't be the goal. If you look at the evolution of C and C++ there were certainly additions after "1.0" that caused a few incompatibilities. Like the transition from KnR C to ANSI C or the addition of bool/true/false keywords to C++. The way those were handled was generally with compiler flags in the transition periods. D can use that strategy. And future D's can still introduce incompatibilities. 1.0 just says, "this release will be maintained and stay accessible with the current feature set for a good long while". It doesn't say progress will stop or that all future developments will be backwards compatible. It just says that you can count on having 1.0 features for a while, with the only changes being bugfixes. Well, that's my feeling anyway. And I definitely didn't feel ready to say that a few months back. --bb
Oct 18 2006
prev sibling next sibling parent reply rm <roel.mathys gmail.com> writes:
Richard Koch wrote:
 4.) no foreseeable releases (such as 1.0)

well in other languages you can have this just as well. Until now each release of python has had something really useful. So, there is always that little thing in your head that says, mmm, let's wait until that or that feature is available, it would be just so much better ;-) Maybe Walter should release version 2.0 tomorrow, the first few weeks everybody would be ? (fill in ...) But after a few weeks, everybody would be like: whooaaw D has reach version 2.0 and we're working towards a version 3.0 :-> roel
Oct 18 2006
parent reply Bill Baxter <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> writes:
rm wrote:
 Richard Koch wrote:
 4.) no foreseeable releases (such as 1.0)

well in other languages you can have this just as well. Until now each release of python has had something really useful. So, there is always that little thing in your head that says, mmm, let's wait until that or that feature is available, it would be just so much better ;-) Maybe Walter should release version 2.0 tomorrow, the first few weeks everybody would be ? (fill in ...) But after a few weeks, everybody would be like: whooaaw D has reach version 2.0 and we're working towards a version 3.0 :-> roel

Or maybe he should just quietly slide the decimal point over on the next release. Next message from Walter: "DMD 1.730 release" :-) --bb
Oct 18 2006
parent rm <roel.mathys gmail.com> writes:
Bill Baxter wrote:
 rm wrote:
 Richard Koch wrote:
 4.) no foreseeable releases (such as 1.0)

well in other languages you can have this just as well. Until now each release of python has had something really useful. So, there is always that little thing in your head that says, mmm, let's wait until that or that feature is available, it would be just so much better ;-) Maybe Walter should release version 2.0 tomorrow, the first few weeks everybody would be ? (fill in ...) But after a few weeks, everybody would be like: whooaaw D has reach version 2.0 and we're working towards a version 3.0 :-> roel

Or maybe he should just quietly slide the decimal point over on the next release. Next message from Walter: "DMD 1.730 release" :-) --bb

oh yes, that would be unintentional I guess :-) but regrettably, in std.compiler I do find the following: uint D_major = 0; uint D_minor = 134; greetz, roel
Oct 18 2006
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Fredrik Olsson <peylow gmail.com> writes:
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
 

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. Or Xcode and integrated gdb. Code completion does not work, but the rest is fully functional. Sure there is no 'Digital Mars Visual D Studio 2005', but from my point of view that is a Good Thing(tm). // Fredrik Olsson
Oct 19 2006
next sibling parent reply Kyle Furlong <kylefurlong gmail.com> writes:
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

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.

Absolutely false. In the context he is speaking of, managers are looking for tools that will enable RAD. D is certainly not capable of calling itself a RAD language. (For the language novice) With C#, most any competent programmer who has never seen the language before can sit down at the IDE and bang out an app in a day, with little hassle.
Oct 19 2006
parent reply Fredrik Olsson <peylow gmail.com> writes:
Kyle Furlong skrev:
 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

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.

Absolutely false. In the context he is speaking of, managers are looking for tools that will enable RAD. D is certainly not capable of calling itself a RAD language. (For the language novice) With C#, most any competent programmer who has never seen the language before can sit down at the IDE and bang out an app in a day, with little hassle.

And who says D is a RAD language? The website in it's very first paragraph says: "D is a systems programming language". With the exception of the news archives I can not find a single hit on RAD on www.digitalmars.com/d. So obviously if what someone wants is a RAD tool for writing UI-apps, then D is not the right tool, nor does the author claim so. It does not mean that D is any less good at solving the problem domain it do targets. And I see that as a strength of D, not being tightly coupled with an IDE. C# is tightly coupled with Visual Studio, and is pretty useless without it. You can make it work, but well then it is no longer easy and "trouble free". A language do not need that property o be successful, and excel in it's field. Java works pretty much every where, lots of IDE:s available, none required. Needing and IDE to get started is not an requirement for success or adoption; Perl, PHP, Python, C/C++, and countless others do just fine. In fact the majority of languages get IDE-support because they are popular, they do not get popular because they have IDE-support. // Fredrik Olsson
Oct 20 2006
parent reply Kyle Furlong <kylefurlong gmail.com> writes:
Fredrik Olsson wrote:
 Kyle Furlong skrev:
 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

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.

Absolutely false. In the context he is speaking of, managers are looking for tools that will enable RAD. D is certainly not capable of calling itself a RAD language. (For the language novice) With C#, most any competent programmer who has never seen the language before can sit down at the IDE and bang out an app in a day, with little hassle.

And who says D is a RAD language? The website in it's very first paragraph says: "D is a systems programming language". With the exception of the news archives I can not find a single hit on RAD on www.digitalmars.com/d. So obviously if what someone wants is a RAD tool for writing UI-apps, then D is not the right tool, nor does the author claim so. It does not mean that D is any less good at solving the problem domain it do targets. And I see that as a strength of D, not being tightly coupled with an IDE. C# is tightly coupled with Visual Studio, and is pretty useless without it. You can make it work, but well then it is no longer easy and "trouble free". A language do not need that property o be successful, and excel in it's field. Java works pretty much every where, lots of IDE:s available, none required. Needing and IDE to get started is not an requirement for success or adoption; Perl, PHP, Python, C/C++, and countless others do just fine. In fact the majority of languages get IDE-support because they are popular, they do not get popular because they have IDE-support. // Fredrik Olsson

"I am quite sure that if it is good enough for Walter, it is good enough for you and me." Was your assertion, which I was disputing. I never claimed that D was a RAD language, in fact, quite the opposite. The OP was about the failure of D as a good fit for the poster's project. I was merely pointing out that "good enough" obviously wasn't good enough in this case.
Oct 20 2006
parent reply Fredrik Olsson <peylow gmail.com> writes:
Kyle Furlong skrev:
<snip>
 The OP was about the failure of D as a good fit for the poster's 
 project. I was merely pointing out that "good enough" obviously wasn't 
 good enough in this case.

And my points are that 1. Emacs (or any other text editor) and gdb (or any other debugger) is more than good enough. Even a bonus, as tight integration with a "standard tool" would ruin it for users without access to the "right standard tool". 2. Richard Koch was well aware of the lack of: * "Visual Studio"-like integrated tools. * GUI-libs, with design tools. * No 1.0 release. 3. An "Visual Studio"-like tool is not required for a language to be accessible to beginners, or for a language to become popular. Childish to complain about that 4 months later, even stupid to waste that much time when it should have been obvious it was not what he wanted from the start. I have no clue what he means by "usable libs, extensions and standard algos". There are many, many resources for grabbing and reusing existing code for D out there, for a wide variety of purposes. And I find them usable, and when I don't I write my own. I would never come up with the idea to make an application with a graphical user interface using D today. So for those apps I choose another tools. I would be willing to invest some time fixing that deficiency if I saw a suggested solution I liked, writing a new GUI-lib is a huge task, and unless the involved love and believe in the idea 110% the effort is wasted. Plus anything that is not platform independent is not interesting at all for me, and unless it takes advantage of the features of D, why waste the effort? For the time being I use D for what I know it is good at: command line tools and server software without user integration. // Fredrik Olsson
Oct 20 2006
parent reply Kyle Furlong <kylefurlong gmail.com> writes:
Fredrik Olsson wrote:
 Kyle Furlong skrev:
 <snip>
 The OP was about the failure of D as a good fit for the poster's 
 project. I was merely pointing out that "good enough" obviously wasn't 
 good enough in this case.

And my points are that 1. Emacs (or any other text editor) and gdb (or any other debugger) is more than good enough. Even a bonus, as tight integration with a "standard tool" would ruin it for users without access to the "right standard tool". 2. Richard Koch was well aware of the lack of: * "Visual Studio"-like integrated tools. * GUI-libs, with design tools. * No 1.0 release. 3. An "Visual Studio"-like tool is not required for a language to be accessible to beginners, or for a language to become popular. Childish to complain about that 4 months later, even stupid to waste that much time when it should have been obvious it was not what he wanted from the start. I have no clue what he means by "usable libs, extensions and standard algos". There are many, many resources for grabbing and reusing existing code for D out there, for a wide variety of purposes. And I find them usable, and when I don't I write my own. I would never come up with the idea to make an application with a graphical user interface using D today. So for those apps I choose another tools. I would be willing to invest some time fixing that deficiency if I saw a suggested solution I liked, writing a new GUI-lib is a huge task, and unless the involved love and believe in the idea 110% the effort is wasted. Plus anything that is not platform independent is not interesting at all for me, and unless it takes advantage of the features of D, why waste the effort? For the time being I use D for what I know it is good at: command line tools and server software without user integration. // Fredrik Olsson

Like I said, people have disparate ideas of "good enough." If you are content with no IDE project management, with using command line tools, and manual debugging, thats fine for you. But many, many people out there enjoy the ease of development that niceties like Visual Studio give. I realize that many of you come from a C++ background, and this might be the norm, but in the Java/C# world people dismiss D for the lack of these things. So if D is trying to woo that crowd, just throwing your hands in the air and saying "ITS GOOD ENOUGH!" is NOT good enough. Like you said, I think its a case of the right tool for the right job. At this time, D is not suitable for anything other than code that doesn't interface with anything but a command line, i.e. it is more of a systems language. However I do think that D /should/ also be an application programming language, and it should be easy. I hit performance bottlenecks all the time in my C# apps, and I would love to be able to redesign them in D. At this time though, its not worth the effort. Maybe I was wrong in thinking that D was headed in this direction, and all Walter wanted was an easier C for writing robust OO operating systems and drivers and libraries, web servers and infrastructure apps. But if that is the case, I'm out of here, because that's not what I do.
Oct 20 2006
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
Kyle Furlong wrote:
 Like I said, people have disparate ideas of "good enough." If you are 
 content with no IDE project management, with using command line tools, 
 and manual debugging, thats fine for you. But many, many people out 
 there enjoy the ease of development that niceties like Visual Studio 
 give. I realize that many of you come from a C++ background, and this 
 might be the norm, but in the Java/C# world people dismiss D for the 
 lack of these things.

That's true.
 So if D is trying to woo that crowd, just throwing 
 your hands in the air and saying "ITS GOOD ENOUGH!" is NOT good enough.

Yes.
 Like you said, I think its a case of the right tool for the right job. 
 At this time, D is not suitable for anything other than code that 
 doesn't interface with anything but a command line, i.e. it is more of a 
 systems language. However I do think that D /should/ also be an 
 application programming language, and it should be easy. I hit 
 performance bottlenecks all the time in my C# apps, and I would love to 
 be able to redesign them in D. At this time though, its not worth the 
 effort.
 
 Maybe I was wrong in thinking that D was headed in this direction, and 
 all Walter wanted was an easier C for writing robust OO operating 
 systems and drivers and libraries, web servers and infrastructure apps. 
 But if that is the case, I'm out of here, because that's not what I do.

I don't see any problem with D as an app language. I don't find IDE's to be useful. But it is pointless denying that others do find them useful, and it is obvious that the lack of an IDE has held D back. If anyone wants to do an IDE for D, I am very much in favor of the project.
Oct 20 2006
next sibling parent "Lionello Lunesu" <lionello lunesu.remove.com> writes:
"Walter Bright" <newshound digitalmars.com> wrote in message 
news:ehbqcr$1e8$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Kyle Furlong wrote:
 Like I said, people have disparate ideas of "good enough." If you are 
 content with no IDE project management, with using command line tools, 
 and manual debugging, thats fine for you. But many, many people out there 
 enjoy the ease of development that niceties like Visual Studio give. I 
 realize that many of you come from a C++ background, and this might be 
 the norm, but in the Java/C# world people dismiss D for the lack of these 
 things.

That's true.
 So if D is trying to woo that crowd, just throwing your hands in the air 
 and saying "ITS GOOD ENOUGH!" is NOT good enough.

Yes.
 Like you said, I think its a case of the right tool for the right job. At 
 this time, D is not suitable for anything other than code that doesn't 
 interface with anything but a command line, i.e. it is more of a systems 
 language. However I do think that D /should/ also be an application 
 programming language, and it should be easy. I hit performance 
 bottlenecks all the time in my C# apps, and I would love to be able to 
 redesign them in D. At this time though, its not worth the effort.

 Maybe I was wrong in thinking that D was headed in this direction, and 
 all Walter wanted was an easier C for writing robust OO operating systems 
 and drivers and libraries, web servers and infrastructure apps. But if 
 that is the case, I'm out of here, because that's not what I do.

I don't see any problem with D as an app language. I don't find IDE's to be useful. But it is pointless denying that others do find them useful, and it is obvious that the lack of an IDE has held D back. If anyone wants to do an IDE for D, I am very much in favor of the project.

I'm using VS .NET 2005 with the vsplugind found on dsource. I find it works quite well. I can even use the built-in VS debugger (although breakpoints don't seem to work, but asm{int 3;} takes care of that). L.
Oct 20 2006
prev sibling next sibling parent ns <ns dummy.com> writes:
Walter wrote:
 I don't see any problem with D as an app language. ....

On the D site, front page, it says: "D is a systems programming language. Its focus is on combining the ... " Don't you think it should say something like: "D is a general purpose programming language which can also be used for systems programming language. Its focus is on combining the ... " or atleast: "D is a systems programming language but can also be used for general purpose. Its focus is on combining the ..." Or, is it really true that D can only do systems programming ? - ns
Oct 22 2006
prev sibling parent reply BCS <BCS pathlink.com> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:
 
 I don't see any problem with D as an app language. I don't find IDE's to 
 be useful. But it is pointless denying that others do find them useful, 
 and it is obvious that the lack of an IDE has held D back. If anyone 
 wants to do an IDE for D, I am very much in favor of the project.

I have heard VS described as "just a really good auto-complete". I get by just fine without it, but then again, I rarely use any libs I'm not used to.
Oct 23 2006
parent reply Bill Baxter <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> writes:
BCS wrote:
 Walter Bright wrote:
 I don't see any problem with D as an app language. I don't find IDE's 
 to be useful. But it is pointless denying that others do find them 
 useful, and it is obvious that the lack of an IDE has held D back. If 
 anyone wants to do an IDE for D, I am very much in favor of the project.

I have heard VS described as "just a really good auto-complete". I get by just fine without it, but then again, I rarely use any libs I'm not used to.

Also really good TAGS type functionality. Alt-G on anything and it takes you to where it was defined. At least with the VisualAssist add-in. It's been a while since I've used Visual Studio without it. --bb
Oct 23 2006
parent Jussi Jumppanen <jussij zeusedit.com> writes:
== Quote from Bill Baxter (dnewsgroup billbaxter.com)'s article

 Also really good TAGS type functionality.  Alt-G on anything
 and it takes you to where it was defined.

FWIW the code changes I made to the Exuberant Ctags utility to allow it to support the D language can be found here: http://www.zeusedit.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=613 With these changes it should be possible to achieve this Alt-G functionality with any ctags aware editor.
Oct 23 2006
prev sibling parent Bill Baxter <wbaxter gmail.com> writes:
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

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
Oct 24 2006
prev sibling parent reply Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> writes:
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.

Give it chance. Stewart. -- -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.1 GCS/M d- s:- C++ a->--- UB P+ L E W++ N+++ o K- w++ O? M V? PS- PE- Y? PGP- t- 5? X? R b DI? D G e++++ h-- r-- !y ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox. Please keep replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit.
Oct 22 2006
parent Richard Koch <dr.richard.koch t-online.de> writes:
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.

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.
Oct 24 2006