import concerns (was Re: Historical language survey)

[kris]

John Reimer wrote:
> In article <e8pk3b$26bo$1 at digitaldaemon.com>, Walter Bright says...
> 
>>Kris wrote:
>>
>>>Er, that really doesn't work at all. Please ignore what I said a few minutes ago
>>>regarding this option (I really should get some sleep instead). 
>>>
>>>The problem here is that, for the proposed static imports, everything must be
>>>fully-qualified with the /original import name/, and that's just plain awful for
>>>long import names. The "import as" allows one to give it a nice short name
>>>instead.
>>
>>Alias also works fine for making substitutes for long, awkward names:
>>
>>import x.y.mod;
>>alias x.y.mod t;
>>
>>x.y.mod.foo();	// works
>>t.foo();	// also works
>>
>>
>>
>>>And, I still think the selective-import is the superior solution anyway.
>>
>>Semantically, it isn't any different. It would even be implemented 
>>internally using the 'alias' machinery.
> 
> 
> 
> Walter,
> 
> The use of "alias" still looks like a hack.  We know you've always been firm in
> your belief that "alias" is the way to do it.  I doubt that all these people
> would be discussing options here if they were satisfied with that solution
> (which has been around for a looong time).
> 
> We know it can be done with alias. Kris knows. We don't think it's good enough.
> That's why this whole topic is being wrangled.  
> 
> So if you choose to make the internal machinery do it with alias, fine!  We just
> want something that's better, nicer, more professional looking! :) (please not
> "static import," though).
> 
> While I do agree that D would suffer if you followed the communities whim for
> every little feature suggested, yet I think you are far too independent minded
> most of the time.  The quote in your recent interview at Bitwise -- "D is going
> wherever the D community wants it to go" -- is really a farce.  D is going where
> /you/ want it to go, Walter. 
> 
> And there's nothing wrong with admitting that.  I just think a honesty is
> important here.  This is your language.  You've made that very plain over the
> years, and most of us who have stuck around have accepted that. You strongly
> disfavour committees and bureaucracy, which is completely understandable; but,
> your over-protectiveness and fear of them may be doing the same sort of damage
> on the opposite end of the spectrum.
> 
> Don't take this wrong:  I'm very thankful about all you've done with D; I just
> get a little frustrated at how hard you are to convince of anything, a trait
> that may do well for you in some ways but probably hurts you so much more in
> other ways.
> 
> -JJR
> 
> 
> 


It takes a lot of courage to stand up and say something like that, so 
I'll be first to give you an ovation ... very well said, John. Hear Hear!

One has to wonder whether this type of online "environment" is conducive 
to solid progress anyway? I mean, we're all a bit disembodied, and the 
experience is really nothing like sitting down together for an afternoon 
with a whiteboard, and thrashing through issues. Can't even get close to 
that. We have zero body-language cues to guide us, and with differing 
opinions that can be a crucial factor in reaching a resolution or not.