My Long Term Vision for the D programming language

[Ola Fosheim Grøstad]

On Wednesday, 17 November 2021 at 19:39:04 UTC, Dukc wrote:
> 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.

Yes, he wrote a long essay in order to diffuse the issue of being 
rude. Clearly a compiler, runtime and standard lib should only 
accept *excellent* code, as everybody else builds on top of it. 
It is better to reduce the scope of the language/library if that 
cannot be achieved.

The bar for acceptance should not be high, it should be very high.

> 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.

Yes, but that means that we have to solve a very difficult 
problem. I think local GC + global RC can be an interesting 
solution. So it is good that they look at making RC easy to 
implement. We have to work to find an excellent solution! 
Mediocre or "you are on your own" is not good enough in system 
level programming anymore.