News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Metaprogramming is less fun in D by systems on Friday April 21, 2017 @01:47PM (#14167659)
so why did python and ruby became popular

and why isnt dart more popular

Re:Metaprogramming is less fun in D by pcwalton on Friday April 21, 2017 @02:02PM (#14167771)
Python became popular because many people saw it as a cleaned-up Perl, and ESR wrote about it.

Ruby became popular because of Rails.

Dart isn't popular because it was designed to be a browser language but did little to court Web developers who like JS (contrary to the HN consensus, a lot of Web developers actually like JS) or other browser vendors.

Re:Metaprogramming is less fun in D by systems on Friday April 21, 2017 @02:25PM (#14167996)
so you agree with me, we python and ruby didnt need a huge corporate backing and dart even with some corporate backing didnt become popular

more examples that debunk that corporate backing is what made rust or go ... are scala and clojure, scala being way more popular than d and clojure ... and neither have corporate backing

in conclusion, you dont really need corporate backing if you have a nicely designed language that have its own path

Re:Metaprogramming is less fun in D by shakna on Friday April 21, 2017 @02:51PM (#14168246)
I also said 'mindshare'.

Cs syntax can be awful. Similar symbols with different meanings. But, it was powerful, fast and simpler than some competitors.

Bash is frequently used today, for all sorts of things. Its even in production products, like git. However, even its creator thought it was a kludge.

There is no simple answer to language success, but a large group of people adopting and improving a language is probably going to be helpful.

Re:Metaprogramming is less fun in D by systems on Friday April 21, 2017 @03:36PM (#14168690)
d is not unpopular because of lack of corporate backing

d is unpopular because of poor project objectives and positioning and playing catch up with other languages rather than leading in any specific area

d needs a novel idea ... i guess they made bet on execution rather than innovation