const

[Lars Ivar Igesund]

Walter Bright Wrote:

> 1) We worked hard on what is the right way to do const for a year. This 
> included at least 3 very different implementations of const that were 
> released. The first two turned out to be very wrong and unworkable, and 
> we learned from that how to do it right. The problem is, we burned up a 
> lot of goodwill with it. Many people simply tuned out with "const is 
> bad". Many of the rest bring baggage from the previous const regimes 
> along that impair understanding of the current const regime.

You completely disregard the _real_ reason for people being hostile against the new const regime, in fact I think you are arrogant to the extreme; people are negative to the current regime because it is not good enough. You haven't burned a single ounce of goodwill with your various attempts - you have only showed that you are willing to let the community test the concepts. But now you have decided that you have found the "perfect", or at least best possible, solution - and while everyone agree that it is better than previous attempts, it is still not good enough for wide usage, or even medium usage. What the community need is a commitment to make the const system work, even if it requires even more changes - that is what a unstable compiler is for. 

If the const regime had been ready, you would most likely have seen a fairly massive surge of new users for D 2.0 - heck, we could even consider start porting Tango properly then. As it is now, I just have this icky feeling, going around hoping you will come around and make it work.

Lars Ivar