is it possible to learn D(2)?

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

On 12/20/10 6:02 AM, Jeff Nowakowski wrote:
> On 12/20/2010 02:48 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>
>> Yes, how about it? Is this a murder investigation? I have a hard time
>> figuring out what is the ultimate purpose of spelunking my past
>> statements to look for inconsistencies.
>
> Hypocrisy is a pet peeve of mine. How about discussing the gory problems
> with const, and discussing the true state of the language at the next D
> talk? If you're going to bash Go presentations for cherry-picking, you
> should hold yourself to the same standards.

I understand. The issue is comparing apples with apples. Every language 
has implementation bugs and shortcomings. I'd be glad to discuss them if 
the gist of the talk were the state of implementation, or if asked 
during any of my talks on D.

What I didn't find becoming about the aforementioned talk on Go was that 
it presented only the good consequences of some PL design choices that 
come with tradeoffs having pluses and minuses in almost equal supplies. 
Taking that stand to its logical conclusion would lead one to believe 
that Go figured out some point that all other languages missed, which in 
my humble opinion is not the case. (BTW I believe that D _did_ figure 
out some points, and did make decisions with mostly positive 
consequences, that all other languages missed, such as the scope statement.)

> As for why I did the research, if people are going to deny statements I
> made, then I'm going to back them up with facts. I did rescind one
> erroneous statement of mine.

Will the jury please disregard the erroneous statement.

> My original post was in response to a thread about somebody looking to
> jump into D2, and somebody who responded asking why D1 was even being
> worked on. I'd say my post was on topic.

I agree.


Andrei