My Long Term Vision for the D programming language

[Dukc]

On Wednesday, 17 November 2021 at 18:57:23 UTC, Ola Fosheim 
Grøstad wrote:
> On Wednesday, 17 November 2021 at 17:48:05 UTC, H. S. Teoh 
> wrote:
>> I don't necessarily disagree with his stance (in fact I 
>> largely agree with it in principle), but the result of this 
>> kind of attitude is that when Great Work is nowhere in sight 
>> (perhaps, just perhaps, because a problem is actually tough? 
>> -- and no one is smart enough to come up with a revolutionary 
>> solution?), then all progress grinds to a halt.
>
> I am getting Winnie the Pooh vibes from this.
>
> The key to finding a solution is understanding the problem and 
> the context. If you don't, you won't find a solution, you will 
> just create more problems. Has nothing to do with "Good Work". 
> It is a sign of "Poor Work". Don't mix those two terms!

Andrei called it "good work" because he meant stuff that is bad 
enough to draw a lot of effort to review, but not so bad that it 
could be just dismissed without appearing rude. "Bad" or "poor" 
would be mean the "obviousy not worth it" work.

>
> If understanding the problem is difficult, reduce the problem, 
> reduce the scope of what you try to achieve. Learn from others. 
> So what can we learn from other system level programming 
> languages? No GC! Ok, remove the GC. Now the scope has been 
> reduced and we can more easily find an acceptable solution for 
> a system level programming language.
>
> That is basically a consequence of your position, but obviously 
> not what you meant…

Being both GC and NoGC is kind of our unique selling point. There 
would have to be a very strong case before it'd be wise to 
discard one or the other from the language.