D2 is really that stable as it is claimed to be?

[deadalnix]

On Sunday, 22 September 2013 at 03:37:02 UTC, Zhouxuan wrote:
> From what I see, as a new user of D, D's current feature set is 
> so exciting and rich enough that I'm willing to give it a try. 
> However, I feel frustrated because some simple usage about some 
> feature I excerice failed, take AA for example, it's a basic 
> feature as described in TDPL, but I even can't use it to store 
> an array indexed by a string 
> (http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=10970),no matter 
> whatever you explaned, it's the truth that I feel AA is not 
> usable and I give up AA (or maybe whole D given that AA is 
> advertised to be a very basic feature).It's really a big 
> problem and you guys should focus more on it if D wanna gain 
> more popularity IMHO.

Yes, AA is definitively the fastest road toward problems.

> On the other hand, D's feature is attractive, no matter how 
> much buggy is it, the expectation that it'll be solved once D 
> gain more popularity and more and more programmers are 
> innvolved in D may keep me learn and practise D as a hobby, but 
> where's the expectation comes from? IMHO, D need a more 
> organized team, meet once a week or two on irc, report your 
> effort and finally post it to public (maybe filtered) like Rust 
> meeting on its wiki page. So that every new user is convinced 
> that D's in a virtuous circle and every issue they care about 
> is being worked on, as well as a future plan (if not being 
> worked ATM) on those issues most mentioned in NG/IRC etc like 
> GC.

Most issue are being worked on. That being said, changing 
semantic in a programming language is always a difficult matter, 
as people code relying on the old bugguy behavior may break.