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