Vision for the D language - stabilizing complexity?

[Chris via Digitalmars-d]

On Thursday, 14 July 2016 at 15:59:30 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad 
wrote:

> It wasn't pure OOP, not sure what you mean by that either.
>
> Not sure what you mean by calling D multi-paradigm.

As opposed to Java that is 100% OOP (well 99%).

>
> 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.

Ok, this is called a metaphor, a figure of speech. I'll translate 
it for you:

To wait until a language is perfect, before you deploy it is like 
constantly waiting for the next generation of computers to come 
out, before you buy one. I.e. it will never happen, because there 
will always a next generation that is even better. But, uh, you 
do get it, don't you?

>> 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.

And why is that so? Is it because of inherent difficulties to 
marry low-level functionality with high-level concepts? No, it's 
because language designers are stooooopid [<= irony]

>> 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.

Except your knowledge is not focused and thus doesn't help 
anyone, random rants on whatever topic comes up instead of a 
focused plan of action with proofs of concept and possibly 
contributions to the core language. How could anyone keep track 
of not to mention act on criticism that is scattered out all over 
threads.

>> 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.

Or is it an intricate problem that's not trivial to solve?

But this is going nowhere ...