On Wednesday, 27 January 2016 at 22:18:49 UTC, 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.
Yes, how dare people see D marketed as a non-alpha language then
realize the language is actually still in an alpha-state.
