Yes - that's right : people mostly shouldn't need to hold such high Bitcoin balances to buy things. What's in the way is the state interfering so you can't change dollars for Bitcoin with your bank and there aren't services that do that which are convenient enough. In time this will change so you can just make Bitcoin payments from your checking account.
Money has three functions : unit of account, store if value, medium of exchange. Cryptocurrency isn't great at the first two, but if we presume the scaling problems will be solved then it is pretty good at the latter because it doesn't require you to trust the banking system. So there is an unbundling of the functions of money described by Eugene Fama originally and then tidied up and better articulated by Tyler Cowen and Randall Kroszner in their book on the New Monetary Economics in about 1992.
Its completely irrelevant what the price of Bitcoin is for its usefulness as a medium of exchange.
This medium of exchange aspect is very important because it makes banks no longer special since its possible in time to make payments without a banking system. Thus the role of the state in regulating banks can disappear eventually - no deposit insurance, no bailouts and no too big to fail.
Credit can be provided by funds because the information asymmetry of banks no longer applies when you can port your banking records via API.
It's a big world out there. Would you ever imagine that D would be taking market share from... Extended Pascal? But there's a naval architect who designs great big ships with a 500k sloc codebase he is exploring porting to D. Web guys get the attention but enterprise users are a much bigger world than just that.
If something is growing very quickly then saying it hasn't yet dethroned C, so it won't ever be significant seems to me to be a bit brittle thinking. Compound growth and the passage of time - thats what has been underway for some time now.
Garbage in, garbage out. Github's language detection isn't perfect, and people in the D community simply aren't particularly focused on marketing and popularity contests. See here for example :
Auburn sounds makes audio plugins in D and share how they avoid using GC in blog posts. Not that bad even for audio. Sociomantic and Weka both do soft real time.
Friend of mine started a company called Resolver Systems to do that for Python (end result). Nice experiment but bad timing for launch just before the crisis. Have got some algorithmic and infrastructure things in D, though plenty is done in other languages too. I ported Bloomberg API to D - it's open sourced bit currently not yet directly used in production. May start to be in coming months. It's not so hard to turn spreadsheets into code (its rarely the spreadsheet itself that does something complicated) so would rather rewrite that than try to do it automatically because code is easier to read, though I had dinner with a Dutch girl who is a professor who works on spreadsheets as functional languages.
See Sociomantic 's Ocean library. But you don't need to go that far in practice in most uses. If you keep GC heap small, disable the GC in critical code paths, have threads that the GC doesn't get involved in, and use allocators most people will be fine.
It's much easier to generate code adapted to that cpu and machine in D because of compile time features. Plus it was an excellent team of a few people working for a few years that built mir. Actually I am joking - mostly one guy working for a few months (with a little help) made mir Blas. A pretty nice example of productivity of D. Also an illustration of the high calibre of person found in the D community.
Weka use D for making systems that store Petabytes of data in production. They don't really like the GC kicking in on that situation. So they write the first draft of code using the GC, and then for production make it not use GC - pre allocating largely. If you really care about latency I guess you can't really afford to use malloc necessarily.
But for the rest of us, D is not really comparable with Java but people tend to think if it the same way. I don't use classes myself (I had one but a guy didn't like it and removed it, though one or two in library code may have crept back recently) but allocate structs on the stack. The latter is more idiomatic generally in D. Depends how you count it, but at 120k sloc, maybe 200k if you include the periphery.
It's easy to allocate without GC using the std.experimental.allocator and emsi containers. Regional heaps, free lists, whatever hybrid model you want.
See excel-d for one example.
If you keep the rest of your heap small, say below 200Meg most people will be fine.
If you don't want to use D, blame the docs and lack of examples - still not as good there, but way better than before and all the unit tests are editable and runnable now. But I think the GC thing is more FUD than a real objection for most people.
What kind of support problems did you have? I found the opposite. It was possible to get such a good level of programmer from the community I was better off having found them letting them go work for the D Foundation on rebuilding compile time function execution. Libraries - meaning a bit more work to have idiomatic style use, but if you write D as C, that's usually okay - and wrapping is a one time cost.
I would say that I have found it to be more of a problem on Windows. That'd because the general C/C++ package management solution on Windows is quite... Old fashioned, and that's not always a D specific problem.
Hi... You have a superb blog. Somebody right now on forum is trying to port your hash map code BTW. Yes past is a shame, though it's momentum relative to itself that matters for a language more than versus others. If Go takes off for network services it doesn't particularly hurt D, because total market is so big. Language has really taken off past years, and I use it within a hedge fund environment. Work with some refugees from C/c++ - we couldn't imagine returning to those languages for what we use D for.
There are many languages that fit certain general descriptions, but that doesn't mean that the experience of using them will lead me to think they are at all comparable in terms of how well they help me solve the kind of problems I face. Go and Scala - I somehow dont think they are close substitutes for each other. The kind of person that likes D's generics will not be the kind that is ultra happy with Go. The kind that likes the short learning curve and plethora of network libraries in Go might not be thrilled by D early experience. It all depends.
You can write D without using the garbage collector, or more pragmatically disable it or have threads doing work that are not registered with the GC. Some standard library functions require the GC, but a diminishing number, and you are no worse off than writing pure C. Just stick @nogc on the relevant code and it won't compile if you use the GC by mistake. Also, D generates less garbage than some other languages when written idiomatically, as you pass structs on the stack.
I learnt from Popper that the facts are theory - laden and from Feynman that science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.
This whole attempt to control the discourse is doomed. There's no such thing as objectivity - ones understanding of the world is shaped by one's experiences and who one is, and that's true for institutions too.
Character matters for an editorial institution, as does form. Snopes built its reputation one way, and became something quite different. And yet they have been granted a role of high influence by Facebook and thus it's in the spirit of good journalism to look into the extent to which they deserve this influence, and the character of the people involved does matter.
One could say that the Mail also isn't a globalist paper and so that naturally sets their perspective against Snopes.
