It seems pure ain't so pure after all

[Jonathan M Davis]

On Tuesday, October 02, 2012 02:19:21 Tommi wrote:
> I don't think you should stop trying to write the best language
> specification you can just because you're past the point of it
> being implementable by this language.

Discussing changes to D2 is of relevance, because that affects what we're doing 
now. Discussing features for a possible D3 is of some relevance, because it 
could eventually affect the language (but is also kind of pointless in that it 
won't matter for years yet). Discussing features simply because they might 
have been nice but we don't intend to ever add them is utterly pointless IMHO.

Aside from D, discussing your dream language is all well and good, but it's 
not really going to help D if the discussion isn't aimed at improving D as it 
is now.

> Call the specification D++
> and maybe some day someone will pick it up and try to implement
> it.

Um. That would actually be bad from our point of view. We don't want to 
fragment the community. D will evolve, and we may even eventually end up with 
D3, and someone may very well create a D++ someday, but it's not really in our 
best interest to promote the creation of such a language (especially not now). 
We want D to succeed, and it's going to have to do that pretty much as it is 
now.

At some point, you have to make what you have work and get it to gain traction 
in the programming community as it is, or what you have is of little practical 
value. Forever tweaking it won't get you there even if the tweaks create what 
is theoretically a better language.

So, feel free to air your ideas, but if they're not of practical value towards
improving D right now, many of us aren't going to pay much attention to them.

- Jonathan M Davis