The proper case for D.

[Lutger]

grauzone wrote:

>>> D2 is in danger of becoming a camel i.e. a horse designed by a
>>> committee...
>>>
>>> Frank.
>> 
>> ?
>> 
>> As far as I know, the 'committee' consists of a gang of three, with
>> Walter firmly at the driving seat, all working very hard to flesh out a
>> language, create an innovative library and quality compiler. All the
>> tools and libraries you mention are being created. In addition there's
>> also LDC which is shaping up nicely. Not to say everything is already
>> here, but that is a question of time and manpower, not direction.
>> 
>> What's up with all the negativity lately? Impatience?
> 
> Some people think D2 tries too much, and neglects the really important
> things at the same time. For example, D2 tries to solve the concurrency
> issue (which is a hot topic which makes D look good at sites like
> stackoverflow), while still relying on a 20 years old linker written in
> assembler.

So the better direction according to some is to stagnate language design for 
D2 so Walter Bright can reinvent the linker? So that years later when asked 
why D didn't do more for concurrency when it was needed, you'd have to 
reply: "well there wasn't any time to deal with such trivial issues, the 
language designer had to work on the toolchain."