On Thursday, 29 January 2015 at 10:22:13 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
Indeed, Walter has some deep reasoning ENTIRELY based on
personal experience. Unfortunately it totally lacks theoretical
backing and shows a complete disregard for how usability
evaluation is done.
Other popular languages, who have users that do not complain
about language syntax, are obviously wrong because they eschew
Walter's personal deep reasoned experience. These users must be
delusional and clueless for being happy with a syntax that is
obviously flawed for not providing redundant noise that
improves usability!
While D, who have few users of which a fair share keep
complaining about the syntax, is beyond critique with an ever
expanding feature set and an increasing pile of reserved words
that prevent library authors from implementing the most common
standard on this planet.
Here is the crux: nobody forces people who don't want to use
"body" as an identifier to use it, but that is not a good
argument for preventing everybody else from using it as an
identifier!
D is a practically impractical language until it provides:
1. feature freeze
2. semantic specification
3. clean slate syntax upgrade
D is a hobby language and is loosing more talent than it should
for not following a reasonable trajectory.
16 years in the making, still no stable release.
In the Mythical Man Month, Brooks advises for a single person
responsible for architecture, or a dynamic duo (this is exactly
what we are with Walter and Andrei).
This role was rediscovered as "product owner" in Agile settings.
Strong leadership and saying "no" more often that people would
like is a constant among good projects.
I also made D proposals back in the days and they were @crap
proposals (literally). You, personally, want syntax changes AND
feature freeze.
Nobody would use a language whose leaders have said yes to the
ideas of the every abusive internet users out there.
