Real World usage of D, Today (was Re: challenge #2: implement the varargs_reduce metafunction)

[kris]

Andrei Alexandrescu (See Website For Email) wrote:
> kris wrote:
> 
>> Andrei Alexandrescu (See Website For Email) wrote:
>> [snip]
>>
>>> It's really easy. I can't right now disclose all of my agenda for 
>>> objective reasons (I will do it later), but the gist of the matter is 
>>> simple:
>>>
>>> 1. There are some simple tests for a language gaging very precisely 
>>> the power of that language
>>>
>>> 2. I want D to pass those tests
>>>
>>> 3. I want to increase community's awareness of the importance of 
>>> those tests for larger use cases, as well as gather ideas from the 
>>> community about how to overcome D's shortcomings in passing the tests.
>>
>>
>> That's great, Andrei. And I, for one, truly want to see some of those 
>> changes happen (such as read-only arrays, covered by the const you 
>> talk of).
>>
>> However, there are also some rather pressing matters of fixing stuff 
>> that is simply broken, and is hampering attempts to build real, live, 
>> useful apps at this time. Yeah, new features are sexy cool, and fixing 
>> long-standing issues ain't.
>>
>> How about taking a long hard look at what sucks in D right now, and 
>> making those a primary priority? Having read many of your posts since 
>> yesterday, it seems you've identified a number of those. Great! Yet, 
>> you guys are apparently pressing ahead with wonderful new stuff 
>> instead? Like, for instance, an updated GC? When did that ever top the 
>> list of real-world issues for D?
> 
> 
> I'm afraid I am not in the position to help here. All I'm really doin' 
> is bitchin'. 

Drat ... that's apparently all I'm achieving too :(


> Walter does the actual work, and prioritizing and 
> implementing is entirely his charter.
> 
> That being said, my view on what should be fixed in D is a bit 
> different. For example, as I said, one of my main foci is putting a lead 
> sarcophagus around "inout" before its radioactive waste affects too much 
> code that will become broken later. Also, implicit conversion rules will 
> change, and again I want to get that in ASAP so not too much code 
> suffers. And so on.

Aye, and that is certainly appreciated. Some of the items you've 
mentioned recently have long been festering sores for many. It'll 
certainly be refreshing to see some attention focused upon those.

Regarding implicit conversion rules -- are you including the "issues" 
currently surrounding signature-matching when using constants?

> 
>> To anticipate a question:
>>
>> There's some serious issues with templates in libs (you really can't 
>> put them there successfully), some serious issues with debuggers not 
>> being able to locate source-files for templates; lots of problems 
>> related to real-world, end-user, /usability/ of the language on a 
>> daily basis.
>>
>> I submit that such issues are just as important a test to pass than 
>> the ones you allude to. Dare I say, perhaps more so for people 
>> actually using the language right now?
> 
> 
> I entirely agree. Figuring out priorities is Walter's call. Let's keep 
> our fingers crossed :o).

Hehe; superstition :-p

Well, thanks for replying. The clarification is much appreciated, though 
I'm honestly sad to hear you're not more deeply involved.

Cheers;

- Kris