Future of D 2.x as stable/bug fix, and what's next for D 3.x

Ola Fosheim Grøstad ola.fosheim.grostad at gmail.com
Tue Sep 1 16:38:19 UTC 2020

On Tuesday, 1 September 2020 at 15:23:10 UTC, IGotD- wrote:
> On Tuesday, 1 September 2020 at 14:48:19 UTC, Ola Fosheim 
> Grøstad wrote:
>> It is rather obvious at this point that it is very difficult 
>> to gain momentum with the current design.
> I didn't quite understand that sentence. What is the problem 
> with the current design that prevents D from gaining momentum?

Assuming that everything is perfect (in terms of the mechanics of 
a language) then it seems that programming languages tend to gain 
momentum when they "appear simple" compared to the alternatives, 
then they accrue complexities as they sustain that momentum.

When C++ emerged it made structuring larger programs simpler than 
with C. Complexities was accrued after gaining momentum.

Basically the threshold for picking up a small language is lower 
if the language does not look like it requires much time 

Python looks simple, although it actually can be complicated. Go 
looks simple etc. Rust claimed to be simpler than C++ (within the 
explicit memory management paradigme).

D1 had the "looks simple" quality too, but probably aggregated 
complexity at a stage that was too early.

More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list