D Programming Language

To get it onto one's system, a bootstrapping step is required. Either building gcc 9 (and only gcc 9) with D support, then using that gcc to bootstrap a later version, or bootstrapping dmd with itself.

In the former case I'm already having to bootstrap Ada onto the system, so D just adds another level of pain. It also doesn't support all the same architectures as other gcc languages.

In the case of dmd, last I checked they just shove a tarball at you containing vague instructions and dead FTP links. Later I think they "updated" this to some kind of fancy script that autodownloads things. Neither is acceptable for my purposes.

I just want a simple tarball containing everything needed with clear instructions, and no auto downloading anything, like at least 90% of other packages provide. Why is this so hard?

Tip: pretend it's still the BBS days and you are distributing your software. How would you do it? That's how you should still do it.

I haven't tried the LLVM D compiler, and at this point quite frankly I don't want to waste any more time with the language, in its current form at least--with apologies to Walter Bright, who is truly a smart and likeable guy. Like I said, it's regrettable.

The only way to revive interest in D is through a well planned rebranding and marketing campaign. I think the technical foundation is pretty sound, but the whole image and presentation needs a major overhaul. I have an idea of how to approach that, were there interest.

The first step would be to revive and update the C/C++ version of the D compiler for gcc so as to remove the bootstrapping requirement and allow the latest D to be built, plus a commitment to keeping this up to date indefinitely. It needs to support all architectures that GCC does.

Next, a rebranding focused on the power of D without garbage collection.

I'm willing to offer ongoing consultation in this area and assistance in the form of distro support and promotion, in exchange for a Broadwell or later Xeon workstation with at least 40 cores. (Approx $350 on Ebay.) That's the cost of entry for me as I have way too much work to do and too few available CPU cycles to process it.

Otherwise, I sincerely wish the D folks best of luck. The language has a lot of good ideas and I trust that Walter knows what he is doing from a technical standpoint. The marketing has not been successful however, sadly.

As someone who considered it back then when it actually stood a chance to become the next big thing, from what I remember, the whole ecosystem was just too confusing and simply didn't look stable and reliable enough to build upon long-term. A few examples:

* The compiler situation: The official compiler was not yet FOSS and other compilers were not available or at least not usable. Switch to FOSS happened way too late and GCC support took too long to mature.

* This whole D version 1 vs version 2 thingy

* This whole Phobos vs Tango standard library thingy

* This whole GC vs no-GC thingy

This is not a judgement on D itself or its governance. I always thought it's a very nice language and the project simply lacked man-power and commercial backing to overcome the magical barrier of wide adoption. There was some excitement when Facebook picked it up, but unfortunately, it seems it didn't really stick.

Carpenters make many things besides houses.

See the section "Types of carpentry".