On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 17:48:39 +0200 Jiří Techet techet@gmail.com wrote:
I agree it helps, but are there really no successful widespread languages that didn't have corporate backing?
Unfortunately we're not living in the 70's or 80's, where the best had a chance, and there's a lot of software written in the mainstream
I think that's a bit pessimistic.
languages. These applications won't get rewritten just because some better language appeared (or do you plan to rewrite geany in D? :-). In the last 15 years the only successful languages were those where some big company was behind (Java, C#).
It's not normally a good idea to rewrite applications. But new applications could be written in a language like D or Go (obviously).
Any successful language will need to interface well with C.
And it's fast. I spend one hour a day just compiling with C++ code.
A D developer says it's faster than Go at compiling, and it has templates: http://www.digitalmars.com/pnews/read.php?server=news.digitalmars.com&gr...
Well, it really depends if he was compiling a single file or a library
The link says: "So the go compiler compiles 120KLOC in 9.23 seconds. I got curious so I just tested dmd against Phobos (88KLOC). That takes 1.24 seconds on my laptop."
Phobos is D's standard library, and includes templates quite a bit.
with many includes. What makes the compilation of C++ slow is that it has to parse the same headers again and again every time they are included (and all the includes inside the includes). This is eliminated in go. If D uses includes, then it will be slow for big projects too.
It doesn't use includes per say, but compiler-generated .di files. C++ parsing is slow anyway because of templates.
(I think both D and Go have ways to speed up compilation further).
Regards, Nick