Derek Parnell wrote:
The D-Team should be dedicating resources to ensuring that the D1
implementation and D1 documentation are in alignment with each other.
By dedicating, I mean that is all that this D1-subteam of the D-Team
work on - no D2 work at all. Any D1 fixes that need to be propagated
to D2 should be done by the D2-subteam. Priority should be given to
getting D1 completed.
Well thank you General :o).
Derek, I have all respect for you and your contributions to D. The
response below does not have the slightest intent to pick on you but to
rein in an unhelpful pattern in this group.
I invite you to see the paragraph quoted above through a different pair
of eyes - the eyes of someone with a different vision of what should be
done for D, and also (most importantly) who believes in it strongly
enough to invest their own non-existing free time in effecting that
vision.
I confess that this couch quarterbacking is mightily frustrating for
both Walter and myself. All the pieces are there for anyone with a
vision to make it happen. I understand you wanted to share your opinion
on what would be best for the future of D, and that's laudable in and by
itself, but such opinions have lately become a choir of whines
fulfilling a "if I want something from D, and I expect Walter to do it"
pattern. We need the exact opposite - if you care, what can *you* do to
make D better? D needs action and leadership.
And why is D1 not finished? Most "finished" languages have
implementation insufficiencies. I've read a couple of days ago that D1
is unfinished (and unusable by implication) because contracts aren't
inherited. If I were Walter, that would be the exact kind of claim that
causes high blood pressure. This is ridiculous! Is *that* the feature
that the building of a system hinges on? Is that really what's stopping
you? Then go back and use contracts in C++, Java, or C#. My guess is, if
anyone is whining that D1 is unusable because it doesn't have contract
inheritance, tomorrow (should contract inheritance be fixed) they'll
whine that it doesn't have named arguments, template virtuals, or a
gorram cherry on top. Sheesh.
And finally - now that I got on to ranting - I won't out the innocent,
but I find it tragicomic that one poster found out fit to rant at length
about the need for stability, to then - within the space of 48 hours -
to post requests for borderline uninteresting but mightily breaking
changes to D1.
I guess I'm done with my Spring rant :o).
Andrei
