On Tuesday, 27 January 2015 at 04:10:24 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 1/26/15 7:25 PM, Zach the Mystic wrote:
On Tuesday, 27 January 2015 at 02:40:16 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
On 1/26/2015 6:15 PM, Zach the Mystic wrote:
What's keeping you from committing to 'dfix' as the way to
solve
issues like the
one in this thread?
Inertia of people being reluctant to use it. It's still work
for
people to use, it's not part of their build process.
What about compiler integration? I'm talking about fundamental
language
changes. Why would people use it if it didn't have official
backing and
wasn't part of the compiler package? In this post:
http://forum.dlang.org/post/uimpnhiweuitnnbeq...@forum.dlang.org
... I said: 'For example, let's say dfix is included with the
compiler
package.
Now you get an error, saying: "Error: `@nogc` is no longer
accepted, but can be automatically replaced with `nogc`. Run
dfix
on this file? (y/n)"... or whatever is deemed the secure
approach
to this feature.'
That's what I mean by "commiting to dfix."
I'm ready to commit to dfix. Problem is many of the changes
suggested are unlikely to mark much improvement, while miring
us in the perpetual illusion of making progress. The fact that
we can avail ourselves of a tactical tool that makes changes
easy is helpful but also opens opportunity of abuse.
Let's stop shuffling the deck. I mean it. Stop shuffling the
freaking deck. Fix the real issues in the language. Add new
libraries. Be original. Be creative. Do real work.
Thanks,
Andrei
Well said.
I've been wavering for a few months between D and Python for
teams on smaller internal projects. IMO this is the right
attitude from core D devs to finish off D2.
Cheers,
uri
