September 16 Re: D needs to learn from competing languages and ecosystems. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
 Posted in reply to Lance Bachmeier | On Tuesday, 15 September 2026 at 21:50:46 UTC, Lance Bachmeier wrote: > [snip] The important change since 2013 is the availability of AI. I can rewrite entire C libraries in D for a few dollars (or even for free, using an existing subscription or running local models, depending on the situation). $100 will go a long way in 2026, and the amount of volunteer time, while still substantial, is greatly reduced. The way forward is for people to not only give the type of feedback you've provided, but more importantly, to provide enough details for people to actually make progress. I think purely vibe coded libraries and apps are a dumb idea. Creating tooling with the assistance of AI and not even reading the code carefully is a different story. We should view this as an opportunity to close the gap with other languages now that resources have stopped being a moat. People using tools like this is a great opportunity for D. I recently started using Codex with GPT-6 Astra, and it is quite good. Of course, people are using these tools to improve functionality of other languages too. Where you talk about people not even reading the code carefully, I think we will see a lot more of this TBH. One of the advantages of D is that it was a really powerful language and also elegant. Elegant might be less important if fewer people are reading it. What might matter more is how efficiently the AI can write and iterate on the code (having DMD compile fast is a positive here) and the performance when it is run. AI is likely already at the point where it will be writing code with fewer bugs than good programmers. | |||
Permalink
ReplySeptember 16 Re: D needs to learn from competing languages and ecosystems. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
user1234  Posted in reply to Claudio Constantin | On Tuesday, 15 September 2026 at 10:57:26 UTC, Claudio Constantin wrote: > Hello! > > [...] > > I'm not familiar with the sentiment in this community around adoption, or if it is even viewed as an issue, but my experience is this. I think that your analysis, your raw and honest "soul verbatim" is a perfect example of the real cases. And there is a very simple explanation: D is never the first language. It's often considered after years of experience with several other programming languages. > People expect something better, when you don't provide it, they don't tell you and carry on. > > I'm eager to see what you guys think of my observations and proposals. Even if it all is wishful thinking without much acknowledgment of the real cost, I wholeheartedly believe it is what'll guarantee a better future for the project. You want D to be more "the first choice". In my opinion this is a desilusion. It will always be a second choice. Even if that can be a bit anoying for people discovering the language. I even think that this "underground" aspect is an asset. | |||
September 17 Re: D needs to learn from competing languages and ecosystems. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Lance Bachmeier  Posted in reply to jmh530 | On Wednesday, 16 September 2026 at 04:01:37 UTC, jmh530 wrote: > One of the advantages of D is that it was a really powerful language and also elegant. Elegant might be less important if fewer people are reading it. What might matter more is how efficiently the AI can write and iterate on the code (having DMD compile fast is a positive here) and the performance when it is run. Fewer people might be reading code (though given the increase in quantity of code when using LLMs, the opposite may happen). We'll still need precise two-way communication with the computer no matter how much LLMs are used. In that sense, we're moving from the old situation where you chose an ecosystem rather than a language to one where the language design is the only thing that matters, because that other stuff is no longer relevant. And that is clearly (to me) an advantage for D. > AI is likely already at the point where it will be writing code with fewer bugs than good programmers. We're at a point where most of the small stuff should be handed off to LLMs. It's time consuming and tedious to get right, so humans don't do a very good job with it. | |||
September 17 Re: D needs to learn from competing languages and ecosystems. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
jmh530 Posted in reply to Lance Bachmeier | On Thursday, 17 September 2026 at 13:04:33 UTC, Lance Bachmeier wrote: > [snip] Fewer people might be reading code (though given the increase in quantity of code when using LLMs, the opposite may happen). We'll still need precise two-way communication with the computer no matter how much LLMs are used. In that sense, we're moving from the old situation where you chose an ecosystem rather than a language to one where the language design is the only thing that matters, because that other stuff is no longer relevant. And that is clearly (to me) an advantage for D. Good points. I might distinguish between programmers and non-programmers. Non-programmers will really just want to accomplish their goals. They might say "Build me a website" without really caring how the LLM uses to do it. The LLM will likely choose a language that is popular to do it. > > AI is likely already at the point where it will be writing code with fewer bugs than good programmers. We're at a point where most of the small stuff should be handed off to LLMs. It's time consuming and tedious to get right, so humans don't do a very good job with it. Agree. | |||
8 hours ago Re: D needs to learn from competing languages and ecosystems. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
strawberry9  Posted in reply to Claudio Constantin | On Tuesday, 15 September 2026 at 10:57:26 UTC, Claudio Constantin wrote: > Hello! > > I want to express my genuine interest in learning D as well as the friction I'm facing in doing so, and at the same time, relay my thoughts on what I believe would improve adoption. > > [...] Your perspective is interesting. My perspective is the complete opposite for some reason (and I've used D for a decade or so). My perspective is to provide the bare minimum. I found that even D provided too much, so i went an designed my own language, based on the bare minumum principle. It's a work in progress, but so far, it's going well - see: https://github.com/strawberry9/CobaltC It cannot compete with D, so don't feel threatened ;-) Actually a lot of CobaltC is inspired as a direct result of my using D (both the good aspects and the not-so good aspects - from my opinion only of course). D's C-like syntax for example, was vital to me ever considering D. D's slice... I love it! CobaltC has this now, using D's syntax. I could go on about how D provide lots of inspiration for CobaltC, but I won't. My real point is that some prefer the minimalist approach, and some don't. Some things need to be left to other to do rather than the language or the designer/maintainer of the language. | |||
