D as A Better C?

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

On 2/11/14, 12:47 PM, Peter Alexander wrote:
> On Tuesday, 11 February 2014 at 20:02:37 UTC, Frustrated wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 11 February 2014 at 19:56:11 UTC, Peter Alexander
>> wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 11 February 2014 at 19:43:00 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>>>> What do you think?
>>>
>>> I think it would have little benefit and would just lead to pointless
>>> fragmentation and maintenance for the compiler devs.
>>
>> Do you program on embedded systems? If not then do you think you
>> are qualified to say it would have little benefit or not?
>
> I do program on embedded systems.
>
> I'll elaborate more on why I think this is a bad idea.
>
> First, we are struggling immensely as it is to get D2 into a complete
> state. Many parts of the language are still poorly defined and even more
> poorly implemented. The standard library is still lacking in critical
> areas and there are still thousands of non-trivial bugs in the database.
> The language itself is still evolving rapidly. Speaking optimistically,
> I think we are still a few years away from resolving the existing
> language issues, based on the current pace of things.
>
> We're heading in the right direction now and even accelerating, but I
> think it would be incredibly unwise to embark on a new side-project,
> which would just consume dev time, pulling effort away from D2
> development. D1 was discontinued to spend more time on D2, not to start
> new projects of debatable benefit.
>
> Please let's finish this language before we start on another.

I agree. Walter, let's put that on the backburner. Thanks.

Andrei