My Long Term Vision for the D programming language

[maltedbarley97]

On Wednesday, 17 November 2021 at 11:01:41 UTC, Ola Fosheim 
Grøstad wrote:
> On Tuesday, 16 November 2021 at 22:46:24 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
>> I'm not sure about "GC only", but yes, D is only relevant if 
>> it has a GC. Going after the GC-free segment of the market is 
>> like releasing OpenBSD-only binaries. It's just too small to 
>> be worth the effort, especially with a well-funded competitor 
>> already in that space.
>
> This is not true at all. Lots of people want a cleaned up C++, 
> with C-like syntax. *Without* global GC.
>
> C++ will never be productive for application level programming. 
> I don't think Rust will either.
>
> What is primarily holding D back is that the project is not run 
> by sound *software engineering* practices. If you were a 
> professional, would you put a tool in your foundation where the 
> design and development practices are not better than your own 
> practices? I would think not.
>
> One reason that developers trust tools made by Google, Apple 
> and Mozilla is that they assume that they use proven software 
> development methods. Small projects have to prove that they do. 
> If they don't they are off the table.
>
> Restructuring the compiler, cleaning up the language and having 
> *zero* regressions in releases is the first step to producing a 
> tool that appeal to professional use.
>
> Right now, D appeals to hobbyists, and that is ok. It is a nice 
> hobby. Nothing wrong with that. And the big advantage of D 
> primarily appealing to hobbyists is that the cost of breaking 
> changes are small, if you don't do them all the time, but 
> collect them and do them at once.

Hobbyism is a nice way of putting it, and at this point, I think 
you're right. Project goals were last relevant about a decade ago.

I think the undesired outcome of D's place in the world comes 
down to the project management style that ultimately creeps in to 
the final product.

Basically it is the proof of how this style of pleasing everybody 
fails on limited manpower and influence. C++ can do it, D can 
not. Even when the principal author spent all his life in the 
gravitas of C++, does not mean there is reward for good 
behaviour. By that, I mean obviously the crowd-pleasing attitude 
(for the crowd you want, not the one you have). As mentioned 
somewhere, implementing new features on a whim goes against being 
community-led - it seems he would prefer people working for him 
instead of with him. Ironically, it becomes the exact opposite of 
pleasing everybody.

By the way, I haven't seen Walter engaging in these "future" 
conversations in a while. Maybe he's getting deja vu too? Forums 
look exactly the same as 5 years ago, debating the same things. 
Making them quite a sad place on the internet.