The proper case for D.

[Lutger]

grauzone wrote:

>> 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
> 
> No, but to use a real linker instead of that piece of crap.

And this real linker is going to magically appear from nowhere? 

>> 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."
> 
> Eh, you seriously think D2 would still be in use at that time? We will
> have D325858 which broke backwards compatibility for the 325858th time.
> This issue (multithreading) seriously could wait a bit longer. The most
> hilarious thing is that multithreading support in Phobos was incredibly
> buggy, and even today, basic multithreading primitives like condition
> variables are lacking from Phobos. Oh yeah, we got builtin mutexes so
> that we can say "D supports multithreading on the language level". Funny.

D1 is stable and actively supported. Tango has the functionality. LDC has 
the linker and work is being done that other OS. Now, what is problem? 
Really I don't understand.

But ok, if you don't think of multithreading to be a big deal and find 
existing solutions perfectly adequate, generic programming a niche 
functionality and functional programming overrated, then the whole D2 deal 
certainly looks like a wasted effort better spend on writing a linker.