accept @pure @nothrow @return attributes

[via Digitalmars-d]

On Thursday, 29 January 2015 at 10:50:49 UTC, ponce wrote:
> In the Mythical Man Month, Brooks advises for a single person 
> responsible for architecture, or a dynamic duo (this is exactly 
> what we are with Walter and Andrei).

You mean like Batman?

I don't feel like discussing system development principles with 
you if you think the "dynamic duo" is anywhere near following 
sound software engineering principles. It is not a fun topic to 
teach (yes, I have done that).

> This role was rediscovered as "product owner" in Agile settings.
> Strong leadership and saying "no" more often that people would 
> like is a constant among good projects.

The only thing that truly matters is that you have a plan and a 
reasonable process to back it up. Leadership is about 
facilitating the process.

A role is not a person, it is backing a task that to be fulfilled 
to facilitate the process in a predictable and orderly fashion.

> I also made D proposals back in the days and they were @crap 
> proposals (literally). You, personally, want syntax changes AND 
> feature freeze.

I personally don't think it is reasonable for Walter and Andrei 
to present D as a tool that is suitable for production. If it is, 
then they have to fess up to massive critique. Take a look at 
dlang.org, where does it say "experimental language"? It used to 
say "beta", which actually should have been "alpha"...

I personally only want D to follow sound engineering principles. 
I personally don't want syntax changes or feature freeze, since 
it won't help without a solid process to back it up.

> Nobody would use a language whose leaders have said yes to the 
> ideas of the every abusive internet users out there.

I think it is abusive and dishonest to present a language as 
ready for use when it nowhere near a stable release. I've 
previously requested that they actually do language design by 
writing up a spec for where D is heading, so that people can make 
up their mind and decide to provide "implementation power" if 
they like the presented outcome. Without a clear horizon, it 
makes no sense to participate unless you have it as a hobby.

That slows down progress. That is what makes Rust and Go winners 
and D a stagnation.

What I suggest is the best for D is:

1. Feature freeze.
2. Fix semantics/refactor compiler internals.
3. Fix syntax to be mainstream friendly.

In that order.

I have no hope that it will happen without a major restructuring 
of the process. I'm totally with ketmar on that front.