On Saturday, 9 June 2018 at 07:40:08 UTC, Mike Franklin wrote:
On Saturday, 9 June 2018 at 07:26:02 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
Your time is valuable, too, and while I'm not going to tell
you want to work on, I'd prefer something more important.
If that's how you feel then I clearly don't share your values.
To me, cleaning up the unimplemented, half-implemented, and
poorly implemented features of D is very important. I would
like to be able to use D professionally, and you make difficult
it to advocate for D with a straight face when you're willing
to tolerate this kind of sloppiness in the language definition
and implementation.
All I'm asking for is a thoughtful decision, and don't
appreciate the implication that I'm wasting my time.
Mike
Seems to be alot of fundamental problems with D that Walter and
Andrei say are "unimportant".
Some of the things I've seen to be neglected are `shared`, `in`,
broken import in-variance, tooling, community, compiler
brittleness. The results of the dlang survery seem to have been
ignored. Features like "tuples", "named parameteers",
"interpolated strings" were highest on the list but I don't see
any call to action. In fact I see quite a lot of resistance.
It seems that Walter and Andrei are forcing D into an "end of
life" stage where language improvements and cleanup are
consistently rejected, even ones with high benefit/const ratio. I
hope I'm wrong though. On the "technical scale" D is a top
contender, but if it stagnates it will be supplanted by new
languages, maybe even ones that already exist.
