Give me a break

[Nick Sabalausky]

"Nick Sabalausky" <a at a.a> wrote in message 
news:h29gil$6u3$1 at digitalmars.com...
> "Jarrett Billingsley" <jarrett.billingsley at gmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:mailman.316.1246228005.13405.digitalmars-d at puremagic.com...
>> With four or five people having voiced concerns over the future of D
>> in the past week or so, what's the busiest discussion?
>>
>> int.nan, of course.
>>
>> Come on.  Get with the program.  Enough already with the bikeshed
>> bullshit.  There are far more important issues at hand.
>
> Oh, please, if int.nan is a bikeshed discussion, then what would we call 
> complaining *about* that discussion? Some of us find it an interesting 
> discussion. So we talk about it. Big f&**^ deal.

And if we really need more "future of D" discussion, here's one: How's D 
going to look to newcomers if the forums have topic-of-discussion-police 
that go around complaining "We shouldn't be talking about this!" "This isn't 
a worthy debate!" "But, this'll never actually happen, so why mention it?!" 
I've been down this road before (man, how I've been down it...). Next thing 
that happens is more people come in on each side of this endless rabbit hole 
that is meta-discussion, real debate slows down (both hypothetical and 
practical), tempers flare, people leave, and the whole group degenerates 
into a paralyzed staticy dysfunctional madness. It's a sad, sad thing. Yea, 
sure, that sounds like a classic "slippery slope" fallacy, but damn if I 
haven't seen it happen time and time again. Let's not go there.