Has D failed? ( unpopular opinion but I think yes )

[Nierjerson]

On Friday, 12 April 2019 at 16:56:25 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 04:31:51PM +0000, Paolo Invernizzi via 
> Digitalmars-d wrote:
>> On Friday, 12 April 2019 at 15:58:54 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
>> > On Friday, 12 April 2019 at 15:49:48 UTC, Paolo Invernizzi 
>> > wrote:
>> > > It's time for D3.
>> > > 
>> > > - Paolo
>> > 
>> > The first step will be to stop saying D2 almost killed the 
>> > language. I was not a user of the language at that time, but 
>> > my reading is that the transition was a massive screwup. If 
>> > the language doesn't evolve it will die.
>
> +1.
>
> This is why I heartily support Andrei's recent stance about 
> std.v2.  I don't agree with his claim that it can't be done 
> because of our present (lack of) manpower.  There are other 
> issues involved with that, that I don't want to get into here, 
> but D really needs to embrace change rather than fear it.  
> Trying to get something as complex as a programming language 
> right from the get-go is impossible.  What you lay down at 
> first can only be an approximation at best, and is bound to 
> need revision later as your direction becomes clearer.  
> Whatever D started out as was only a faint shadow of what it 
> became today, and similarly what we have today is only a faint 
> shadow of what it might become in the future.  The moment we 
> let the past stop the future is the moment D is dead.

I agree with this. Also, one must build it for them to come, 
meaning that the manpower comes with progress. It is a illogical 
thing to believe that we can't do something because X is not in 
place when the very fact that X is an effect from doing that 
thing.

See, if people saw that D was headed in the right direction they 
would be more likely too invest their time, and as some of these 
people do it, D has more man power, and more progress is made, 
and then more people come, and more man power exists and more 
people come.

It's sort of like the avalanche effect with transistors. It 
really works this way with humans(as if humans were electrons).

The argument should be "How much time do we want to allocate this 
week to task X: 5 days?  4 hours? 1 minute?" and so the time is 
allocated and progress is made. That is all that matters. It's 
basic scheduling and project management.

The thing is, allocating 0s to something stops all progress. Even 
1s is better than 0. At least with 1s, in theory, the goal will 
be reached. [Good project management comes from trying to 
optimize the completion time of all tasks. There is even software 
that helps optimize this using advanced mathematics and takes in 
to account many of the standard issues. It would be a good thing 
for D, if it cares about progress, to invest in such a tool.]


>
>> The transition between D1 and D2 was problematic, that's true, 
>> (but the problem was the duality between Phobos/Tango), but 
>> happened, successfully at the end.
>> 
>> The transition between Python 2 and Python 3 was problematic, 
>> but happened, and Python is flourishing...  does it worth? 
>> Being someone who worked with Python strings / bytes in both 2 
>> and 3, yes, it worths!
> [...]
>
> Yes, and I hope std.v2 will happen. And not just happen, I hope 
> there will be a std.v3 in the future, and a std.v4 in the 
> distant future.
>

It can only happen by planning. Without proper planning there is 
an inevitable end.[Of course, there is an end to all things I 
suppose but that is completely out of our control]