On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 05:09:44 +0300, jasonw <u...@webmails.org> wrote:
You hit the nail on the head here. I see two real problems with his
messages:
1) he's "force fitting" every possible language feature he learns into
D. Clearly some features are useful, others are not, and this is why
many of bearophile's ideas fail and generate endless debates and
unnecessary noise. He can't see that the features just don't fit in.
This is not true, there are ideas here from many others as well that
generate endless debates.
The reason is as far as i can see not always the ideas "just don't fit
in". The reasons IMO are the chain of command and the resources.
Take the last long discussion on named arguments, i don't think anyone was
against it.
One another thing is that a few of us evasive to some questions.
If you lack the vision of good language design as a whole, you shouldn't
start suggesting new features like this. I'd appreciate it more if we
won't introduce "new" concepts in this way.
This is oxymoron, by that logic there is not a single soul on earth with
that vision.
You just dismissed whole academia, isn't this the way it operates?
Don't you think this is harmful? Why does D2 exist? D1 wasn't enough?
2) Programming language design requires rigorous definition of terms and
other things. The D community doesn't encourage using precise,
well-defined, unique terms. This leads to some subtleties and other
problems in the discussions. Again I think the best place for general PL
discussion is somewhere else, preferable in the academia. I'm sorry to
say this, but I likely need to study how to put him in the kill file.
The whole bearophile phenomenon takes place on an isolated island
somewhere in the dark corners of D's history. The bug reports and
benchmarks are priceless, but these "lectures" about other language
often aren't.
I agree he should slow down proposing, at the same time people better stop
ad hominem attacks.
If it is way to go, we all need to shut up.
