www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.announce - We hit the ACM mailing list!!!

reply BCS <ao pathlink.com> writes:
The internetnews.com artical just went out on the ACM TechNews mailing list

Quote:

When Is a D Better Than C? When It's a Language
InternetNews.com (01/05/07) Patrizio, Andy

A newly developed free programming language aims to address the shortcomings 
of C/C++, though some question the likelihood of the language's success since 
it is not being released in conjunction with any other product or platform. 
The language, D, was developed by Walter Bright, who created the first C++ 
compiler, Zortech++. He has developed a compiler and standard libraries for 
both Windows and Linux for D. The Phobus standard library and the compiler 
front-end are open source, and a D compiler is included for the widely-used 
open source C compiler, GCC. D is able to produce compiled code without the 
need of a virtual machine. The language is also somewhat backwards compatible 
with C: It can be interfaced with any C API without the need for a call
interface; 

inline assembler, and Java-like single inheritance. In production since 2001, 
D has received considerable contribution from the Slashdot/open source
developer 
community. Bright designed the language with the experience of C++ programmers 
in mind, not the sale of a product. He says, "The idea is to make programming 
in D the most productive possible. Quicker to learn, quicker to write code 
in, quicker to debug, and quicker to maintain." However, Forrester analyst 
Jeff Hammond questions the programming language's market potential. He says, 
"To make a technology viable, the technology has to be more than just good. 
You have to build a business model around it. What's the business model here?"
Jan 08 2007
next sibling parent reply Dave <Dave_member pathlink.com> writes:
BCS wrote:

 
 The internetnews.com artical just went out on the ACM TechNews mailing list
 
 Quote:
 
 When Is a D Better Than C? When It's a Language
 InternetNews.com (01/05/07) Patrizio, Andy
 
 A newly developed free programming language aims to address the 
 shortcomings of C/C++, though some question the likelihood of the 
 language's success since it is not being released in conjunction with 
 any other product or platform. The language, D, was developed by Walter 
 Bright, who created the first C++ compiler, Zortech++. He has developed 
 a compiler and standard libraries for both Windows and Linux for D. The 
 Phobus standard library and the compiler front-end are open source, and 
 a D compiler is included for the widely-used open source C compiler, 
 GCC. D is able to produce compiled code without the need of a virtual 
 machine. The language is also somewhat backwards compatible with C: It 
 can be interfaced with any C API without the need for a call interface; 

 an inline assembler, and Java-like single inheritance. In production 
 since 2001, D has received considerable contribution from the 
 Slashdot/open source developer community. Bright designed the language 
 with the experience of C++ programmers in mind, not the sale of a 
 product. He says, "The idea is to make programming in D the most 
 productive possible. Quicker to learn, quicker to write code in, quicker 
 to debug, and quicker to maintain." However, Forrester analyst Jeff 
 Hammond questions the programming language's market potential. He says, 
 "To make a technology viable, the technology has to be more than just 
 good. You have to build a business model around it. What's the business 
 model here?"
 


Once again, Forrester shows its value as a contrary indicator...

There are quite a few successful languages out there that *don't* (or didn't)
have a "business 
model" wrapped around it. Perl, Ruby, Python, C, C++ to name just a few. Those
languages showed how 
they were useful to programmers and _then_ business models developed around the
language, not the 
other way around.

As for the other languages that started with a business model... Well, the
business model for Java 

took a few years 
itself to become really popular, and that was after massive spending and
influence by MS, and also 
basically because the alternative (VB.Net) wasn't palatable by many.
Jan 08 2007
next sibling parent Bill Baxter <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> writes:
Dave wrote:

 BCS wrote:

 The internetnews.com artical just went out on the ACM TechNews mailing 
 list
 ...
 However, 
 Forrester analyst Jeff Hammond questions the programming language's 
 market potential. He says, "To make a technology viable, the 
 technology has to be more than just good. You have to build a business 
 model around it. What's the business model here?"


 
 Once again, Forrester shows its value as a contrary indicator...
 
 There are quite a few successful languages out there that *don't* (or 
 didn't) have a "business model" wrapped around it. Perl, Ruby, Python, 
 C, C++ to name just a few. Those languages showed how they were useful 
 to programmers and _then_ business models developed around the language, 
 not the other way around.
 
 As for the other languages that started with a business model... Well, 
 the business model for Java ended up changing (set-top devices to server 

 really popular, and that was after massive spending and influence by MS, 
 and also basically because the alternative (VB.Net) wasn't palatable by 
 many.


To me it's a pretty encouraging sign that D is on the move if such 
analysts are even commenting (or being asked to comment) on the language 
and its potential.

--bb
Jan 08 2007
prev sibling parent Sean Kelly <sean f4.ca> writes:
Dave wrote:

 
 As for the other languages that started with a business model... Well, 
 the business model for Java ended up changing (set-top devices to server 

 really popular, and that was after massive spending and influence by MS, 
 and also basically because the alternative (VB.Net) wasn't palatable by 
 many.


And for the first few years, the market was totally confused about 
whether .NET was a library/VM or whether it was a server object 
architecture.  While tying a business model to a language may garner a 
lot of initial attention if the business model can be popularized, it 
doesn't provide for any long-term guarantees.  Look at Java applets, for 
example.  They are a horribly failed business model, and Java has 
succeeded almost despite this.

Sean
Jan 08 2007
prev sibling next sibling parent reply John Reimer <terminal.node gmail.com> writes:
On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 21:07:44 +0000, BCS wrote:


 When Is a D Better Than C? When It's a Language
 InternetNews.com (01/05/07) Patrizio, Andy
 
 A newly developed free programming language aims to address the shortcomings 
 of C/C++, though some question the likelihood of the language's success since 
 it is not being released in conjunction with any other product or platform. 
 The language, D, was developed by Walter Bright, who created the first C++ 
 compiler, Zortech++. He has developed a compiler and standard libraries for 
 both Windows and Linux for D. The Phobus standard library and the compiler 
 front-end are open source, and a D compiler is included for the widely-used 
 open source C compiler, GCC. D is able to produce compiled code without the 
 need of a virtual machine. The language is also somewhat backwards compatible 
 with C: It can be interfaced with any C API without the need for a call
interface; 

 inline assembler, and Java-like single inheritance. In production since 2001, 
 D has received considerable contribution from the Slashdot/open source
developer 
 community. Bright designed the language with the experience of C++ programmers 
 in mind, not the sale of a product. He says, "The idea is to make programming 
 in D the most productive possible. Quicker to learn, quicker to write code 
 in, quicker to debug, and quicker to maintain." However, Forrester analyst 
 Jeff Hammond questions the programming language's market potential. He says, 
 "To make a technology viable, the technology has to be more than just good. 
 You have to build a business model around it. What's the business model here?"



This write-up was really poorly done, in my opinion.  I don't think it's
an accurate representation of D, in general.

Also, "Phobus" is spelled wrong.  Usually being petty about spelling is
not my way... but if this is somehow an official quotation from the ACM
mailing list, I worry about the reception it will get.


What??  That just sounds wrong: since when do those languages
represent the origination of D's gc? The whole announcement sounds wrong in
much the same way.

-JJR
Jan 08 2007
parent reply Brad Anderson <brad dsource.org> writes:
John Reimer wrote:


 What??  That just sounds wrong: since when do those languages
 represent the origination of D's gc? 


Or the origins of aany GC.  Lisp had garbage collection in the 60's.

BA
Jan 08 2007
parent John Reimer <terminal.node gmail.com> writes:
On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 17:12:16 -0500, Brad Anderson wrote:


 John Reimer wrote:


 What??  That just sounds wrong: since when do those languages
 represent the origination of D's gc? 


 
 Or the origins of aany GC.  Lisp had garbage collection in the 60's.
 
 BA



Yes, that's what I meant also.  gc's have been around for a very long
time.  Smalltalk is another example.


-JJR
Jan 08 2007
prev sibling next sibling parent Pragma <ericanderton yahoo.removeme.com> writes:
BCS wrote:

 
 The internetnews.com artical just went out on the ACM TechNews mailing list


Awesome.  D's on a roll lately.


 What's the business model here?"


"Build it, and they will come."

Seriously, it's what the big guys did. :)

If a technology is good enough for everyone to use, and is what they've 
been looking for, then they'll likely use it - provided they can find 
out about it.  Thankfully, it's still easy to be heard on the Internet 
without having to shell out a megabuck, provided you have something 
halfway provocative or worthwhile to say.  Being able to say "It's c++, 
only readable and with a GC" or "Java without a VM" is more than enough 
to get people to read, even if they're only interested in debunking the 
claim.  After all, whiz-bang advertising is only good for getting 
attention for something people would tend to ignore in the first place.

Also, a language is just a tool and not the kind you can charge* for 
anyway.  Look at MS and Sun.  They put gobs of cash into their 
respective VM-based platforms and they still can't capitalize on them 
directly; they sell developer suites and training instead.

Walter has done nothing different - he built a better tool for next to 
nothing from which other, profitable, opportunities will arise.  The 
same could be said for any one of us with a D library or utility that 
plans on using that to provide a profitable service of some kind. 
Ultimately, the only major difference is one of scale - it's still the 
same model.

(* encumbering developer software, or even just proprietary language 
specifications, with expensive and/or restrictive licenses, tends to 
turn people off real quick.)

-- 
- EricAnderton at yahoo
Jan 08 2007
prev sibling parent Georg Wrede <georg nospam.org> writes:
 However, Forrester analyst Jeff Hammond questions


Let's put it this way: how many languages would kill to be even 
puked-upon by "a Forrester Analyst"???? And we're there already.

I couldn't care less about his opinion, it's the fact that such a guy 
gets quoted (or should I say caught) studying D, that's what really is 
significant.

Woo, the juggernaut has commenced the initial firing-up sequence. Fire 
and brimstone seem increasingly inevitable, the devotees have damp 
palms, the pilgrims are getting palpitations. We truly are approaching 
the day of the Benevolent Dragon, with a capital D!

D-men!
Jan 08 2007