DIP 1021--Argument Ownership and Function Calls--Final Review
timon.gehr at gmx.ch
Fri Sep 20 01:17:45 UTC 2019
On 19.09.19 12:17, Walter Bright wrote:
> A bit of friendly advice - berating me is not a great way to sell me on
> your ideas. My natural reaction to that is to look hard for ways to
> reject it. If your idea really is better, then you lose, I lose, and the
> D community loses.
> A much better method is to start by:
> 1. explaining that your method meets the requirement of 100%
> mechanically checkable memory safety, that it's not just a collection of
> "best practices".
Your own answer to this was "we plug the holes one by one". Do you see
the double standard? Anyway, I have actually done this but you just
ignored the explanation and went back to claiming that my suggestions do
not meet this requirement. I simply can't spend tens of hours in debates
every week anymore.
> 2. pointing to an existing implementation in another language that
> proves point (1) would be very helpful.
You are pointing to Rust, but you are not doing what Rust does. And
anyway, Rust does not support GC. Do you really want to remove GC from D?
> P.S. I've encouraged people for the last 10 years to submit proposals on
> how to make D memory safe. Nothing happened but a few hand-wavy
> suggestions. I gave up waiting, now I'm moving forward one way or
> another. If that's what it takes to get people motivated to come up with
> better proposals, that's good!
The issue is that you make it seem like you are unable to recognize
valid criticism, let alone better (i.e., non-terrible) proposals. I
don't really have time to create a polished DIP and I'm not even sure
you would acknowledge it as such. All I can say is that I'll severely
regret my investment in D if @live moves forward. This is not at all
where I expected the language to go. Where is the pragmatism?
More information about the Digitalmars-d