On Wed, 27 Jan 2016 22:18:49 +0000, deadalnix wrote: > On Wednesday, 27 January 2016 at 20:51:43 UTC, rsw0x wrote: >> On Wednesday, 27 January 2016 at 20:31:33 UTC, deadalnix wrote: >>> On Wednesday, 27 January 2016 at 09:00:17 UTC, rsw0x wrote: >>>> The response from the D community seems to be an overwhelming "It's >>>> fine as is" when it's obviously not. Which is making me question >>>> sinking more time into D if there actually is no cohesive plan to >>>> make D an actual C++ competitor rather than a toy language as it >>>> currently stands. >>> >>> I can't take any of this seriously as long as ConcernedDev1950 do not >>> provide any PR. >> >> ConcernedDev1950 will go use a language that doesn't require them to >> write the standard library. > > Apparently no, they come here and cry and get nothing done.
I just want to do my own thing. When I try doing it in D, I often have to work on three or four dependencies as well. Sometimes it's a good tradeoff -- D occasionally has something no other language I'm willing to use has. Most of the time it's not. That's not crying; it's practicality.
