Who favors the current D1 situation?

[Walter Bright]

bearophile wrote:
> Walter Bright:
>> People who do work in large corporations managing extremely large
>> codebases with legions of programmers working on them have made
>> this abundantly clear to me.
> 
> You have to be really careful about adding features supported by such
> "evidence". Dynamic languages show that often such people are wrong,
> or they bark at the wrong tree, or there are alternative ways
> (totally different ones, that they can't even think about, like test
> driven development in a dynamically typed language) to solve similar
> problems. What they say are ways to solve problems in languages like
> C++ and Java, but experience shows that totally different ways can be
> invented, in different languages, to avoid some of those problems.

I agree that one has to be careful about what evidence one pays 
attention to. I'm not convinced about the evidence of dynamic languages, 
however, as I don't believe dynamic languages are used for very large 
programs. The reigning kings of large scale apps are C++ and Java. C++ 
has const, and there is continuing pressure to add some form of const to 
Java.

> 
> (I am for the backporting of some features of 2.x to 1.x, because I
> don't like the const system of 2.x, and I'm not going to use it (for
> now), but I understand that it may lead to too much work for D
> developers).
> 
> Bye, bearophile