How is the D programming language financed?

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

On 12/27/10 2:48 PM, Jeff Nowakowski wrote:
> On 12/27/2010 02:16 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>
>> There's a risk on this newsgroup to get stuck in a sort of limbo mode,
>> in which the analysis of increasingly narrow corner cases loses focus on
>> a few larger issues. Granted, we _must_ leave no nooks and crannies
>> unexplored, but we also shouldn't spend disproportionate amounts of time
>> on those at the expense of getting work done in D.
>
> Funny, I thought the people trying to write const correct libraries and
> multithreaded programs were trying to get work done in D. Immutability
> was supposed to be the crown jewel of D2. Given your past statements,
> and the recent statements backing down on immutability, especially as it
> is used in Phobos, a thought occurred to me:
>
> Rename D2 to Icarus, backport the "amazing", working parts of D2 to D1,
> and rename that to C++0x. Everybody wins.
>
> Sorry to pick on you, Andrei, but with leadership comes responsibility.
> I also believe in truth in advertising. Walter can't tout immutability
> as a bullet point if it isn't working, has unresolved design issues, and
> you yourself have backed away from it.

I don't feel you're picking on me but I confess it's difficult to 
distinguish the good signal in your posts from attempts at irony.

There are also a number of unstated assumptions that are plain wrong. 
First, to the best of my knowledge immutability has only implementation, 
not design, issues. As both Walter and I mentioned, those issues are 
slated to be solved after the 64-bit version is out.

Second, I find it difficult to reconcile my past actions with the notion 
of irresponsibility.

Third, immutability is not the central feature of D2 as much as 
aftermath of no default sharing.

Fourth, my "backing away" on immutability is a disingenuous reframing of 
the simple fact I mentioned: immutability and const offer stronger 
guarantees than C++'s const and as a direct consequence it will be used 
less than it. This was in response to people's attempts to directly 
carry C++'s const-based idioms to D.

I'd be glad to continue this dialog if we could focus on productive 
topics that are likely to push things towards the better. Thanks.


Andrei