Vision for the D language - stabilizing complexity?

[Ola Fosheim Grøstad via Digitalmars-d]

On Thursday, 14 July 2016 at 15:28:45 UTC, Chris wrote:
> I don't know much about Simula (your patriotic choice :), but 
> it's pure OOP and as such cannot be compared to D either (which 
> is multi-paradigm).

It wasn't pure OOP, not sure what you mean by that either.

Not sure what you mean by calling D multi-paradigm.

> I.e you have to deploy it at some point, it will never be 
> perfect before you deploy it - just as you have to buy a 
> computer at some point. If you keep waiting for the next 
> generation, you'll never buy a computer (has happened!).

I still don't get the comparison. I don't buy a new computer 
until I am running out of RAM. Speed is no longer a big issue for 
me, not even with C++ compilation speed.

> So they don't exist, because the perfect language is also a 
> system level language.

Who has been talking about perfect? Geez, system programming 
languages are lightyears away from perfect. And they are way way 
behind high level ones.

> It's tiresome and doesn't get us anywhere.

Then don't argue the point without having a real argument against 
it.  If your motivation is entirely defensive then you don't 
really achieve anything.  If your motivation is informational, 
then it can achieve something. E.g. you could enlighten me.

I don't agree with you that knowledge doesn't get people 
anywhere. I think it does, it just takes a lot of time, depending 
on where they come from. I don't know much about Andrei, but 
Walter does move over time.

> E.g. low-level control vs. safety (cf. the discussion about 
> casting away immutable)

I don't think that is a very good argument. All it tells me is 
that D's approach to safety isn't working and that you need to do 
this by static analysis over a much simpler core language.