Dicebot on leaving D: It is anarchy driven development in all its glory.

[Jonathan M Davis]

On Friday, August 24, 2018 6:54:38 PM MDT Joakim via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Friday, 24 August 2018 at 19:26:40 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> > On 8/24/2018 6:04 AM, Chris wrote:
> >> For about a year I've had the feeling that D is moving too
> >> fast and going nowhere at the same time. D has to slow down
> >> and get stable. D is past the experimental stage. Too many
> >> people use it for real world programming and programmers value
> >> and _need_ both stability and consistency.
> >
> > Every programmer who says this also demands new (and breaking)
> > features.
>
> Heh, thought this proggit comment thread was funny given this
> complaint, some C++ users feel it's moving too fast now:
>
> "In the last few years it has basically become a different
> language, the feature creep is insane. I stopped caring about new
> features since C++11, and progressively used the language less
> and less."
>
> Another user:
>
> "I remember being really excited about C++11 - and I think it
> really did add some much needed features. But it's been getting
> more and more out of hand since then..."
> https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/99rnuq/comment/e4q8iqn

LOL. Yeah. Basically, we all somehow want stuff to be completely stable and
never break any of our code, but we also want new stuff that improves the
language - which frequently requires breaking existing code (and even if it
doesn't require breaking existing code, adding features always risks
breaking existing ones - even simply fixing bugs risks introducing new
ones). There are better and worse ways to handle change, but I think that
we're pretty much all fundamentally conflicted in what we want. You simply
can't have everything stay the same and have it change at the same time, and
yet, that's basically what everyone wants. Pretty much the only way to get
around that would be to have a perfect language with no bugs, and that's
obviously not happening even if we could all agree on what the "perfect"
language would entail (which we're clearly not going to do).

- Jonathan M Davis