Do we need a time-out in D evolution?

[Bill Baxter]

Dave wrote:
> Bill Baxter wrote:
>> Walter Bright wrote:
>>> Deewiant wrote:
>>>> Walter Bright wrote:
>>>>> const by default is too big a change, and I'm reluctant to do 
>>>>> something
>>>>> so far out of the mainstream of these types of languages.
>>>>
>>>> Perl 6 has const by default for subroutine parameters. Okay, so it's 
>>>> not "this
>>>> type of language", but it's worth mentioning as it's still _Perl_, a 
>>>> language
>>>> steadily a couple or more places above D in the TIOBE index.
>>>
>>> By "these types of languages", I mean C-style compiled languages. 
>>> There are many functional languages where const is the default.
>>
>> Hey, Perl is a "curly brace" language too!  ;-)
>>
>> Here's the lo-down on Perl 6:
>> http://www.perl.com/pub/a/2003/07/29/exegesis6.html
>>
>> They're using the syntax
>> sub Foo(Num x) { ... }  # x is const ref
>> sub Foo(Num x is rw) { ... }  # x is 'read-write' ref
>> sub Foo(Num x is copy) { ... } # x is pass by value
>>
> 
> Funny thing is since the whole history of Perl revolves around 
> practicality, to me this is a pretty strong argument that the time is 
> ripe for a C-style compiled language to try the same thing.

That may have been true about Perl up to version 5.  But...

 From wikipedia:
"""
The Perl 6 design process was first announced on July 19, 2000, on day 4 
of that year's Perl Conference,[2] by Larry Wall in his State of the 
Onion 2000 talk.
"""

A 7-year-and-counting design/release cycle is pretty much as far from 
practical as you can get.  But still Perl is well known and widely used, 
and I suspect if Perl 6 is ever released it will eventually be adopted 
by most Perl hackers.  Though with Perl 6 taking such a long time to get 
out, one can't help but fear that the "second-system effect" is at work 
here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-system_effect)

--bb