Handling constructive criticism

[Robert Fraser]

Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
> "Bill Baxter" <dnewsgroup at billbaxter.com> wrote in message 
> news:fu5u61$1m4u$1 at digitalmars.com...
> 
>>> I surrendered long ago. I can't even be bothered reading those post you
>>> talk of now. Nothing will come of them. Walter won't change. D will 
>>> fester
>>> on for a while but all the good things that it could have been will not 
>>> see
>>> light of day. D is already lot better than the alternatives and that 
>>> seems
>>> to be good enough for Walter. Mediocracy rules. There is no desire to aim
>>> higher.
>> The current problem seems to be the opposite to me.  The problem *is* that 
>> Walter doesn't think D is good enough, and so he think he needs to add 
>> ingredient C to woo large-systems developers or ingredient P to try to 
>> leap ahead of the competition.  If anything he's aiming too high, into 
>> territory that no one knows anything about, and which may pan out to be 
>> ultimately not so useful.  Or it may pan out to be fantastic.  I don't 
>> think anyone knows.
> 
> I'm sure this is what you're getting at, but it's both.  Because W keeps 
> adding feature C (lots, and lots, of feature C.  forever.) and thinks about 
> feature P, feature M, and feature T don't get any love and so fall into 
> decay.
> 
> It'd be great if development on featured C and P just _STOPPED_ for once and 
> if we could get some other features working _properly_.  You can't build a 
> house in a tidal zone without a hell of a foundataion. 

This man speaks of truth. We need to go back, take a look at the bugs 
and some of the odd syntactic constructions, and get D as it is today 
ship-shape. Then look forward to all the cool new features.