How an Engineering Company Chose to Migrate to D

Post by oblio » Wed, Jun 20, 2018, 5:06 PM UTC

blub wrote: post #67

oblio wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A friend (C# dev) just refused a job from a company in the Netherlands, for a D dev position. I don't know if it's the same company. It's not that they're not capable, but some will not want to risk several years of their career to learn it.

And did they refuse the job because of D, low salary, not wanting to move to the Netherlands or some other reason? I could see a C++ dev giving this a try without hurting their career prospects, but C# devs are not exactly known for trying out non-mainstream technologies. If they switch for a couple of years MS will pump out a couple of frameworks and .NET programming languages. Fire and motion as such.

Post by closeparen » Wed, Jun 20, 2018, 5:09 PM UTC

setr wrote: post #63

closeparen wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Framing closures as a “requirement” is pretty strange. Depending on the context they can be an ergonomic nice-to-have, but it’s not like you can’t express a program without them.

>Depending on the context they can be an ergonomic nice-to-have, but it’s not like you can’t express a program without them. When talking about turing complete languages, everything is an ergonomic nice-to-have. All language features aspire to be so nice to have, that you come back around and call it a necessity. But you can still express a program without them, unless you strip out so much as to lose turing complete…

Post by coldtea » Wed, Jun 20, 2018, 5:22 PM UTC

acehreli wrote: post #53

ssdd wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, almost all the time its the inclination of an individual towards a new language that becomes the driving factor of migration rather than the actual shortcoming of current language.

Except that "the inclination of an individual towards a new language" is because of "the actual shortcoming of current language."

Post by lambda » Wed, Jun 20, 2018, 5:30 PM UTC

Xophmeister wrote: post #7

While the article states that other languages were evaluated, it seems as though the project was motivated entirely by the author and the evaluation was just paying lip service to what was basically a foregone conclusion. Don't get me wrong, I like D from the small amount of playing I've done with it -- and maybe it is the best tool for their purposes -- but this doesn't strike me as an impartial evaluation. The need…

  fn main() {
      let a = 10;
  
      fn function() {
          println!("Hi!");
          // println!("a is {}", a)
          // fails with:
          //   can't capture dynamic environment in a fn item
          //   use the `|| { ... }` closure form instead
      }
    
      let borrow_closure = || println!("a is: {}", a);
      let move_closure = move || println!("a is still: {}", a);
    
      function();
      borrow_closure();
      move_closure();
  }

Post by mkirklions » Wed, Jun 20, 2018, 5:43 PM UTC

acehreli wrote: post #58

seanhunter wrote: post #34

This article seems to ignore two of the most important reasons to choose one language over another. Specifically: 1)Expressiveness in the given problem domain. Some languages are really great in particular niches. 2)Availability of devs. The ability to hire and retain a really great team makes or breaks projects, and while a smart, motivated dev can learn any language, it's definitely a factor in their choice to work…

0) Tool satisfaction > motivated dev can learn any language The key word is "motivated". That's why I'm an expert user of C++98 and D but I can't learn Go, Python, C++11, etc. > able to get really passionate devotees of the language That.