C++17

[rsw0x via Digitalmars-d]

On Wednesday, 27 January 2016 at 22:18:49 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
> On Wednesday, 27 January 2016 at 20:51:43 UTC, rsw0x wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 27 January 2016 at 20:31:33 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 27 January 2016 at 09:00:17 UTC, rsw0x wrote:
>>>> The response from the D community seems to be an 
>>>> overwhelming "It's fine as is" when it's obviously not. 
>>>> Which is making me question sinking more time into D if 
>>>> there actually is no cohesive plan to make D an actual C++ 
>>>> competitor rather than a toy language as it currently stands.
>>>
>>> I can't take any of this seriously as long as 
>>> ConcernedDev1950 do not provide any PR.
>>
>> ConcernedDev1950 will go use a language that doesn't require 
>> them to write the standard library.
>
> Apparently no, they come here and cry and get nothing done.

Yes, how dare people see D marketed as a non-alpha language then 
realize the language is actually still in an alpha-state.