Vision for the D language - stabilizing complexity?
Andrew Godfrey via Digitalmars-d
digitalmars-d at puremagic.com
Sat Jul 16 06:09:22 PDT 2016
On Saturday, 16 July 2016 at 07:14:03 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
> On Thursday, 14 July 2016 at 23:38:17 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>> On 7/14/2016 6:26 AM, Chris wrote:
>>> Now, now. Where's your sense of humor?
>>
>> The thing is, he's just here to troll us. His posts all follow
>> the same pattern of relentlessly finding nothing good
>> whatsoever in D, and we're all idiots.
>
> Whoah, that's sensitive. Never called anyone an idiot, but D
> zealots seem to have a very low threshold for calling everyone
> else with a little bit of experience idiots if they see room
> for change in the language. The excesses of broken
> argumentation in this newsgroup is keeping change from coming
> to the language.
>
> It is apparent by now that you and Andrei quite often produce
> smog screens to cover your trails of broken argument chains,
> which only serve to defend status quo and not really lead to
> the language to a competitive position. And no, you are not
> right just because you declare it, and no if you loose an
> argument it is not because someone changed the topic.
>
> The sad part about D is that it could've become a major player,
> but is very unlikely to become one without outside help and
> less hostile attitude towards rather basic CS. But outside help
> is not really wanted. Because apparently D can become a major
> player by 2020 without a cleanup according to you and Andrei.
>
> It is highly unlikely for D to become a major player without
> language cleanup and opening more up to outside input.
I didn't see anyone call you an idiot either. You and Walter have
both gone too far, probably because you're annoyed at each
other's words and attitude:
Walter called Prolog "singularly useless". You have been
referring to changes that would amount to a new major version of
D as "a cleanup". From the forums, my sense is that there IS a
groundswell of opinion, that D2 has some major mistakes in it
that can't be rectified without doing a D3, and there's a strong
reaction to that idea based on experience with D1 -> D2. Perhaps
what is needed is a separate area for discussion about ideas that
would require a major version change. The thing about that is
that it can't be done incrementally; it's the rare kind of thing
that would need to be planned long in advance, and would have to
amount to a huge improvement to justify even considering it.
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list