retard wrote:
> The funny thing about D is that if you start writing a book about it,
> there's a high desire to change the core features and add more of
them in
> the community.
I have started writing a D book in June and have not desired to change
much about the language. I did find the half-reference behavior of
slices weird and voiced my opinion about it.
If you meant Andrei's book; he is not changing the language just because
he is writing a book about it. The design of the language and the book
happen together.
My book targets the Turkish speaking novice programmer, and I am sure is
tainted by my C++ experience. D is an excellent language to teach
programming with. There is very little cruft in the language when doing
the simple things. There is very little to make novice mistakes with.
> It's just that D is a shitty language to work with because even
> the stable version is a moving target and/or many features are
> unspecified.
I did need to change my text only a few times, e.g. when constant-sized
arrays became value types.
Shitty is in the eye of the beholder. Someone else may call C++ shitty
just for the opposite reason: it is too stable. Years go by without any
addition to the language. Even more years go by for the compiler vendors
to catch up. That's not productive.
D is great because it is being designed openly by great programmers: the
person with the longest C++ compiler writing experience, the person who
has pushed C++ templates beyond their limits and introduced needs for
stronger templates, many others who contribute to the language at
various levels. Heck, even my naive voice has an effect on the language.
D2 obviously must stabilize before being useful; but it is great that it
moves fast before that happens.
Ali
