D is dead

[rjframe]

On Thu, 23 Aug 2018 07:27:56 +0000, JN wrote:

> I think a large part is defining what kind of users D wants to attract.

I've begun wondering whether "pragmatism" is sometimes used as a code word 
for indecision.

> Is it possible to make a language that both groups would be happy to
> use? Perhaps, or perhaps the gap is too wide. Is adding features like
> dip1000 and betterC spreading ourselves too thin? Perhaps. Perhaps there
> are features that aren't really used, and should be reworked or cut from
> the language instead

I do think that D can do it. And I think D is the only language I've 
looked at that can do it. But I think it's going to take Walter and 
Andrei, in conversation with the core team, putting together a real list 
of priorities and setting a high-level direction. Look at what the end 
goal really is and what it will take to get there. The current high level 
document tends to read as a list of what's already being worked on, but 
piecemeal improvements probably aren't going to cut it -- this goes back 
to the leverage conversation Andrei started earlier.

> (has anyone ever used contracts?).

I do. It's a shame D doesn't take them seriously. As it is, I generally 
use them solely to express intent, which you don't get by placing asserts 
in the function body. I often read the function signature of functions I'm 
calling without reading the body, so separating the asserts from the body 
is helpful.

And they're often useful on interfaces.