On Saturday, 9 May 2015 at 09:31:10 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
On Saturday, 9 May 2015 at 02:08:54 UTC, weaselcat wrote:
On Friday, 8 May 2015 at 08:51:24 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 5/8/2015 12:45 AM, weaselcat wrote:
some of these really are klunky though.
Nobody's ever satisfied. Doesn't mean the tools aren't
effective, and doesn't mean a "complete lack of tooling".
I think it's important to air grievances with the language
because it won't get better by sticking our heads in the sand.
Stating things like "unit tests could have better reporting
capabilities" etc, sparks a good discussion on how to improve
them, and I think this thread is proof of that.
I think it's good to have an honest discussion about these
issues, but there is also a tendency of some to go overboard.
At times it crosses into trolling territory where they'll post
something negative just to be posting something negative.
One incident that stands out followed an announcement that got
a lot of press for D, and someone thought it was a good use of
his time to post a laundry list of problems with the language
in that thread, much of which was pure crap. Those posts do not
contribute anything.
There is a tendency to bash and trash D for not having the exact
same feature that some other language has, or for not having a
tool that exists for some other language. This often gives the
impression that D is unusable and complete crap, unless, of
course, it will get feature X demanded by user Y. This type of
discussion is not constructive, but guided by personal likes and
dislikes and only creates a lot of noise with no real results.
There is always room for improvement in software. All programs
could be better, all tools could be better. But that something
could be better doesn't mean that it's crap.
