All function attributes possible with "@"?

David Gileadi via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d at puremagic.com
Wed Dec 14 13:44:40 PST 2016


On 12/14/16 2:34 PM, ketmar wrote:
> On Wednesday, 14 December 2016 at 21:02:09 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>> If we keep making breaking changes, we will never have a significant
>> user base
>
> so the core issue is a direction D developement should go:
> 1) have a good language, or
> 2) have big userbase.
>
> it looks like those goals are in conflict now. while i can see how
> userbase matters, i also can't see how it matters for me -- it turns out
> that i got a mediocre language as a result. well, there are alot of
> "acceptable" languages out there, and c++ has a huge userbase and a huge
> codebase, so it will always win here. the only way for D to win (as i
> see it) is to deliver a better language. and that means dropping support
> for old code from time to time, not to stick with bad design forever.
> also, tools like dfix can be made to "upgrade" code.
>
> so far being "stable" didn't brought Bick Bucks or Big Corporate Support
> to D. yet instead of using that to advance the language, to redesign
> features and so on, D is stuck in a hope of getting some Big Future
> Support. i may be completely wrong, of course, but i see the unique
> strength that D can exploit: the ability to change.
>
> sure, turning D into "moving target" will make some older code invalid.
> but if the author doesn't want to maintain his code, is there any real
> reason to use it? with automatic upgrade utility it wouldn't be that
> hard to keep the code up-to-date.
>
> i believe that pediodical "cleanups" will make D better, and will win
> more users in the long run. so i will continue advocating "moving
> target" concept from time to time. ;-)

I've noticed that recent languages like Go and Swift are trying to have 
both by bundling a code fixer with new versions of their language. I 
have a hard time seeing the downsides of that.


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list