• Tim Keating <mrtact gmail.com> Dec 26 2008
• Yigal Chripun <yigal100 gmail.com> Dec 26 2008
• BCS <ao pathlink.com> Dec 26 2008
• John Reimer <terminal.node gmail.com> Dec 26 2008
• Don <nospam nospam.com> Dec 27 2008
• Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> Dec 27 2008
• "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> Dec 27 2008
• John Reimer <terminal.node gmail.com> Dec 27 2008
• Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> Dec 27 2008
• John Reimer <terminal.node gmail.com> Dec 27 2008
• Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> Dec 27 2008
• John Reimer <terminal.node gmail.com> Dec 27 2008
• Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> Dec 27 2008
• John Reimer` <terminal.node gmail.com> Dec 27 2008
• Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> Dec 27 2008
• Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> Dec 27 2008
• Derek Parnell <derek psych.ward> Dec 27 2008
• Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> Dec 27 2008
• Derek Parnell <derek psych.ward> Dec 28 2008
• John Reimer <terminal.node gmail.com> Dec 28 2008
• John Reimer <terminal.node gmail.com> Dec 27 2008
• "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> Dec 27 2008
• John Reimer <terminal.node gmail.com> Dec 27 2008
• Christopher Wright <dhasenan gmail.com> Dec 27 2008

Tim Keating <mrtact gmail.com> writes:

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

Yigal Chripun <yigal100 gmail.com> writes:

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.

BCS <ao pathlink.com> writes:

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.

John Reimer <terminal.node gmail.com> writes:

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# ?
 


 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

Don <nospam nospam.com> writes:

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# ?


 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.

Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:

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.

"Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:

"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.) 

John Reimer <terminal.node gmail.com> writes:

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.
 


 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 

Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:

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.

John Reimer <terminal.node gmail.com> writes:

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.
 


 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

Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:

Walter Bright wrote:
 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.


Yah but due to other factors than its technical qualities. Leaving those 
out of the story puts things in an odd light.

Andrei

John Reimer <terminal.node gmail.com> writes:

Hello Andrei,

 Walter Bright wrote:
 
 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.
 


 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.
 


 those out of the story puts things in an odd light.
 
 Andrei
 



He he... that's one reason the polarization effect remains so intact.  Our 
point of view tends to hold a lot of sway on our interpretation of events. 
:)  I understood what Walter was getting at, though.... just that the disdain 
really didn't accomplish anything.


If I allowed myself, I could easily be caught up in discussing why the
popularity 
of DOS was one of the greatest handicaps of the era... but such an opinion 
is bound to clash with those those that made their living from it (Hi, Walter 
:D ) Granted, my point of view, would have been from the perspective of the 
consumer... and one who, as a teenager, had no investment in it commercially. 
 However, the motivation behind Linux development and use was probably hugely 
influenced by the industries' rigid hold on DOS 16-bit.... so we probably 
have DOS (and win 3.1, win 95/98) to thank for Linux's growing popularity.


It seems that influencing an industry to steer it in any one direction is 
usually impossible except by the corporations most involved.  This is one 
area where Linux (and opensource in general) has been so effective because 
it forced the industry giants to maneuver away from their intended path. 
 I don't think Linux would be what it was without the effects of the commercial 
side of things... nor would commercial OSes be what they are without open 
source being a competitive element.  So I've come to appreciate the influence 
of both, even though I don't particularly care for some of the elements of 
either.


I don't support the idea of D on .NET because I think it's the best thing 
around... I do so because I think it has a place in the grand scheme of things, 
something that D might do well to be part of. :)


-JJR

Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:

John Reimer wrote:
 Hello Andrei,
 
 Walter Bright wrote:

 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.


 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.


 those out of the story puts things in an odd light.

 Andrei


 
 He he... that's one reason the polarization effect remains so intact.  
 Our point of view tends to hold a lot of sway on our interpretation of 
 events. :)  I understood what Walter was getting at, though.... just 
 that the disdain really didn't accomplish anything.
 
 
 If I allowed myself, I could easily be caught up in discussing why the 
 popularity of DOS was one of the greatest handicaps of the era... but 
 such an opinion is bound to clash with those those that made their 
 living from it (Hi, Walter :D ) Granted, my point of view, would have 
 been from the perspective of the consumer... and one who, as a teenager, 
 had no investment in it commercially. However, the motivation behind 
 Linux development and use was probably hugely influenced by the 
 industries' rigid hold on DOS 16-bit.... so we probably have DOS (and 
 win 3.1, win 95/98) to thank for Linux's growing popularity.


Such scenarios are very hard to play even in hindsight because of the 
effect of all butterflies involved. It's easy to imagine that if DOS's 
original inventor inspired himself from Unix more than CP/M we'd all be 
better off today. Even things as simple as path separators and newline 
separators would have changed a lot of things. Technically, clearly DOS 
was a sort of a distraction, a detour for the overall progress of the 
field, as were so were many other events. It would be a mistake to 
forget that fact in a purely technical discussion. But in a higher-level 
discussion it would also be a mistake to ignore that of all Universes 
possible, things played out the way they did and no amount of wishful or 
bitter analysis will change that.


Andrei

John Reimer` <terminal.node gmail.com> writes:

Very true.  That's why I try to refrain from gut reactions like my view that
"DOS
was one of the greatest handicaps of the era" :).  It's very easy to look back
and
critique decisions made by others... a little too easy; it is a little to easy
to
do when one isn't in the hotseat of decision-making.  There are certain things,
though, that will inevitably annoy the consumer (some of us more than others,
I'm
sure), especially those that get a little too idealistic sometimes. :)

While "no amount of bitter analysis will change" the way things played out in
the
past, I believe that thoroughly analyzing (minus the "bitter") the history can
certainly help one prepare for the future, or else we are indeed doomed to
repeat
mistakes.  Naturally, the situations are rarely the same, but many times there
are
enough similarities for one to draw careful conclusions about cause/effect. That
is why D is here, no less. And even, then the challenge still remains. :)

I'm not sure I answered you according to what you were meaning to express, but
hopefully I was close.

All the best,

-JJR

Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:

Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 Walter Bright wrote:
 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.


 Yah but due to other factors than its technical qualities. Leaving those 
 out of the story puts things in an odd light.


It looks primitive these days, of course, but at the time it hit the 
sweet spot of max technology for minimal price. The performance/cost was 
the best available.

Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:

Walter Bright wrote:
 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 Walter Bright wrote:
 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.


 Yah but due to other factors than its technical qualities. Leaving 
 those out of the story puts things in an odd light.


 It looks primitive these days, of course, but at the time it hit the 
 sweet spot of max technology for minimal price. The performance/cost was 
 the best available.


I'd add time to market, brilliant marketing, and sheer luck to the mix.

Andrei

Derek Parnell <derek psych.ward> writes:

On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 10:57:40 -0800, Walter Bright wrote:

 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.


In my world, the "real" programmers were working on IBM mainframes and the
like. The new-fangled "mini"-computers (Olivetti, Xerox, Sun) were starting
to make their way in to commercial operations and these were seen as
under-achieving toys by the "real" programmers. 

I was just about to recommend the IBM Model-23 mini-computer/word-processor
to my bosses when news of the IBM PC broke. I was given a preview and
demonstration of the new PC when I visited the IBM offices about 3-months
before the official release by the very enthusiastic, and aptly named,
"Entry Systems Division". 

The price/performance of the PC eradicated the mini-computer market
overnight. Sure it had technical limitations but the release of computing
to the masses swamped those limitations. One now no longer needed "real"
programmers to get some actual work done and it was damn cheap by
comparison. 

The Unix/PC divide was yet to happen. The 16-bit PC enabled non-specialist
people whereas Unix was seen, if acknowledged at all, as the domain of
arcane geeks. Unix was not practical and PC-DOS was; Unix was academic and
PC-DOS was business - end of story.

Times have changed, of course.

-- 
Derek Parnell
Melbourne, Australia
skype: derek.j.parnell

Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:

The DEC systems have clearly been forgotten <g>. But at the time of the 
PC intro, DEC was king of the minicomputer business, and the buzz was 
"wait till you see DEC's response to the PC!" DEC had the LSI-11 
machine, superior to the 8086 in nearly every way. All they had to do 
was repackage it.

DEC finally had a big unveiling of their response, the Rainbow PC. My 
DEC fanboy friends were incredulous at how bad it was. DEC didn't get 
it, and they missed the boat, scrood the pooch, borked it up, snatched 
defeat from the jaws of victory, you name it. (The problem was DEC 
crippled it in order to prevent it from encroaching on their 
minicomputer business, a business they failed to recognize was obsolete.)

I had an H-11 at the time (a hobby version of the LSI-11). It kicked 
ass. DEC could have owned the PC business, but they threw it away with 
both hands, and eventually sank without a trace. I gave away my H-11 for 
$25.

Derek Parnell <derek psych.ward> writes:

On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 18:12:27 -0800, Walter Bright wrote:

 The DEC systems have clearly been forgotten <g>. 


Yes! How could I have forgotten all those years I spent programming VAX
machines! Fine operating system, fine hardware, lousy DEC business savvy.

-- 
Derek Parnell
Melbourne, Australia
skype: derek.j.parnell

John Reimer <terminal.node gmail.com> writes:

Hello Derek,

 On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 18:12:27 -0800, Walter Bright wrote:
 
 The DEC systems have clearly been forgotten <g>.
 


 VAX machines! Fine operating system, fine hardware, lousy DEC business
 savvy.
 



Surprisingly, I had two semesters worth of introduction to a DEC VAX machine 
in college. On it I learned some FORTRAN programming.  Don't ask me where 
I did that...and why the college was still teaching FORTRAN-77 in the 90's. 
:)

-JJR

John Reimer <terminal.node gmail.com> writes:

Hello Derek,

 On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 10:57:40 -0800, Walter Bright wrote:
 
 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.
 


 the like. The new-fangled "mini"-computers (Olivetti, Xerox, Sun) were
 starting to make their way in to commercial operations and these were
 seen as under-achieving toys by the "real" programmers.
 
 I was just about to recommend the IBM Model-23
 mini-computer/word-processor to my bosses when news of the IBM PC
 broke. I was given a preview and demonstration of the new PC when I
 visited the IBM offices about 3-months before the official release by
 the very enthusiastic, and aptly named, "Entry Systems Division".
 
 The price/performance of the PC eradicated the mini-computer market
 overnight. Sure it had technical limitations but the release of
 computing to the masses swamped those limitations. One now no longer
 needed "real" programmers to get some actual work done and it was damn
 cheap by comparison.
 
 The Unix/PC divide was yet to happen. The 16-bit PC enabled
 non-specialist people whereas Unix was seen, if acknowledged at all,
 as the domain of arcane geeks. Unix was not practical and PC-DOS was;
 Unix was academic and PC-DOS was business - end of story.
 
 Times have changed, of course.
 



Yes... that's a good historical description about the significance of the 
early years of 16-bit PC.  I think that's what Walter was describing too... 
one of the problems of offering different viewpoints is that sometimes two 
people are describing there experience within different periods of computer 
history.


Anyway, there is significance in the fact that the general aura started to 
change in the late 80's and 90's... I guess those of us who had not been 
involved in the early years of the PC missed the point about how accessible 
PC's had become (we took it for granted).  Although, some of us (young
hobbiests 
in contrast to business developers) were being introduced to the Atari ST, 
Apple II, Amiga, and Commodore 64 instead.  When we finally jumped onto the 
PC platform as our first big upgrade from the geeky computers, we realized 
that -- contrary to what we were used to from computers like the C64 and 
Amiga -- the PC was not being pushed to the limits.  It's potential was being 
wasted!  I think that was our general impression, and this was a great evil 
for people that were used to getting all the machine could give them.  And 
as the years went on, we were still stuck in 16 bit while 32-bit systems 
had been around for years: 386,486, Pentium, etc. 


It's funny how easily we get spoiled by technology such that we forget how 
things once were.  Later generations continue act in similar ignorance.  
This is one reason I think it's so important study history.

-JJR

"Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:

"John Reimer" <terminal.node gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:28b70f8c104198cb3624a1d43670 news.digitalmars.com...
 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.


 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.


 I was a bit unclear. Walter's observation just triggered a certain nerve. 
I'll attempt to clarify:

I've personally come across a lot of truly terrible "programmers". Refusing 
to touch a language because it isn't .NET, or because it *is* .NET and thus 
related to MS, or because it isn't Java (and no I don't mean JVM), etc. is 
just one of many classes of fallacies I've seen over and over and over among 
these people. No, that in and of itself doesn't make them "incompetant 
fools" (go figure, the one time I decide to skip the spell check ;)), and 
there may very well be a few people who actually do have a rare good reason 
to stick with .NET. But, such "fanboyism" is often fairly indicative of a 
"fool".

And yes, I really do think it would be best for everyone, developers, 
consumers, and even the fools themselves, if these people were weeded out of 
the field. Thus, the idea of bowing to a fallacy merely because it's a 
popular one truly disgusts me. It should be classified as a "reason not to", 
not a "reason to". (But overall, I would count adding .NET as a target for D 
as a "good thing" (although not a personal priority) because one of the "pie 
in the sky" things I've been dreaming to see in the programming world 
(besides overall better programmers) is a complete divorce of language and 
platform.) 

John Reimer <terminal.node gmail.com> writes:

Hello Nick,

 "John Reimer" <terminal.node gmail.com> wrote in message
 news:28b70f8c104198cb3624a1d43670 news.digitalmars.com...
 
 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.
 


 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.)
 


 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.


 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.
 


 nerve. I'll attempt to clarify:
 
 I've personally come across a lot of truly terrible "programmers".
 Refusing to touch a language because it isn't .NET, or because it *is*
 .NET and thus related to MS, or because it isn't Java (and no I don't
 mean JVM), etc. is just one of many classes of fallacies I've seen
 over and over and over among these people. No, that in and of itself
 doesn't make them "incompetant fools" (go figure, the one time I
 decide to skip the spell check ;)), and there may very well be a few
 people who actually do have a rare good reason to stick with .NET.
 But, such "fanboyism" is often fairly indicative of a "fool".
 
 And yes, I really do think it would be best for everyone, developers,
 consumers, and even the fools themselves, if these people were weeded
 out of the field. Thus, the idea of bowing to a fallacy merely because
 it's a popular one truly disgusts me. It should be classified as a
 "reason not to", not a "reason to". (But overall, I would count adding
 .NET as a target for D as a "good thing" (although not a personal
 priority) because one of the "pie in the sky" things I've been
 dreaming to see in the programming world (besides overall better
 programmers) is a complete divorce of language and platform.)
 



Fair enough.  And it may be that you get to see some trully nauseating stuff 
that I'm not in contact with, in which case I have no argument. :)

Thanks for clarifying.

-JJR

Christopher Wright <dhasenan gmail.com> writes:

Tim Keating wrote:
 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.


Cross-platform UI framework? You're talking about GTK#, right?