DIP 1021--Argument Ownership and Function Calls--Final Review

Timon Gehr 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 mailing list