DIP83

[Márcio Martins via Digitalmars-d]

On Thursday, 14 January 2016 at 14:28:05 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
> Ok I'll bite: it doesn't matter.
>
> This DIP is additive. The problem with D is not that we don't 
> have stuff in there, is most of the stuff in there are half 
> backed. Adding more half baked things in there only makes 
> things worse.
>
> We don't have line number in stack traces, what does a better 
> assert error message (that one can configure by code) will do  
> ? Worse, how is that consistent with the position that 
> "Segfault are good enough with a debugger" and null by default 
> reference types ?
>
> There is no point in discussing the doorbell when the house has 
> no window.

True that. I think it's great to keep evolving the language and 
making it better, on the other hand, if D is to get serious 
adoption, then everything, especially the basics like 
debuggability, quality of codegen and compiler bugs will need to 
be solid. D as a language is already powerful enough to thrash 
the competition, this is why we love it. But the reason it's 
experiencing slow adoption, is because of tooling and general 
implementation quality, and the lower threshold of tolerance from 
the general population.