If D becomes a failure, what's the key reason, do you think?

[Derek Parnell]

On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 03:22:23 +1000, Walter Bright  
<newshound at digitalmars.com> wrote:

> Tesuji wrote:
>> In article <e8l426$26o3$1 at digitaldaemon.com>, Don Clugston says...
>>> It's all in the libraries. D is a fantastic language to write  
>>> libraries for. That's where you get the benefit from all the  
>>> incremental improvements. If const-by-default enables the creation of  
>>> much better libraries, then it's worth the pain. If it doesn't, don't  
>>> do it.
>>> Ruby had this huge surge in popularity not because of the language,  
>>> but because of the library Ruby On Rails. Developing good libraries  
>>> requires a stable language, and we don't have that right now. The  
>>> protection/module system seems to be completely broken.
>>  Agreed, in addition I also believe that a const-by-default C++ like  
>> reference
>> type is needed before any container library (like DTL) can be  
>> effectively
>> written. Currently D is lacking in this area where C++ is strongest.  
>> relying
>> solely on built-in array / hash is hardly the solution.
>
> I don't understand why either of these would *prevent* effective  
> libraries from being built. Neither enables new programming techniques  
> or paradigms, they are just aids to documentation and debugging.

Agreed, plus reliablility. A compiler-detected attempt to break a  
read-only contract increases reliability.

-- 
Derek Parnell
Melbourne, Australia