Vision for the D language - stabilizing complexity?

[Chris via Digitalmars-d]

On Thursday, 14 July 2016 at 18:36:26 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad 
wrote:
> On Thursday, 14 July 2016 at 18:23:54 UTC, Chris wrote:
>> On Thursday, 14 July 2016 at 18:00:36 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad 
>> wrote:
>>
>
> You were going ad hominem for no good reason. Here is a pretty 
> good rule: if you don't think you will get something out of an 
> discussion, don't engage in it. I personally find that I learn 
> a lot from discussions on language design, even when other 
> people are completely wrong. You have your own view of what is 
> needed, I have a completely different view. You cannot impose 
> your view of what is need on me, it won't work without a good 
> argument to back it up.

I certainly don't impose my view on others. The only reason I was 
going ad hominem was to get you on board in a more substantial 
manner than engaging in random discussions on the forum.

> My view is that the position that some are arguing holds: the 
> core language has to be stripped down of special casing in 
> order to make major progress.
>
> Aka: one step back, two steps forwards.

D is open source. Would it be possible to provide a stripped down 
version that satisfies you as a proof of concept? The problem is 
that abstract reasoning doesn't convince in IT. If you provide 
something concrete people can work with, then they might pick up 
on it.

> If it makes you happy: I am from time to time looking at 
> various ways to modify floating point behaviour, but it won't 
> really matter until complexity is cut back. Because it could 
> easily become another complexity layer on top of what is 
> already there. The best way to improve on D is not to add more 
> complexity, but to cut back to a cleaner core language.

That's good to hear. Maybe you should go ahead anyway and see if 
and how it could be integrated. Maybe it won't add another layer 
of complexity. Unless you share it, nobody can chip in their 2 
cents which might lead to a good solution.

> I think you are taking a way too convenient position, somehow 
> pretending that there are no major hurdles to overcome in terms 
> of mindshare. My view is that mindshare is the most dominating 
> problem, e.g. changing viewpoints through arguments is really 
> the only option at the moment.

You mean you won't give up until everybody has the same opinion 
as you :) Well, that's not how things work. Maybe a more 
diplomatic approach would be better.

> What other options are there?

Create facts. Provide a stripped down version of D and show that 
it's better. You don't need to do it all by yourself. Ask like 
minded people to help you. I'd be interested in the result. 
You've praised stripped down D so much that I'm curious. I'm not 
ideological about things.