Civility

[Chris]

On Tuesday, 28 June 2022 at 15:20:34 UTC, Paul Backus wrote:

> I reject the premise of this argument. D is only "relatively 
> obscure" if you compare it to the small handful of "superstar" 
> languages like C, Python, Javascript, and so on. The vast 
> majority of programming languages never achieve even D's level 
> of popularity, and would be overjoyed to have as many users and 
> open-source contributors as D does.

Yes, relatively means in relation to others. Sure, it's huge in 
relation to V. The point, however, is that it is members of the D 
community / users of D who are constantly whining about why it's 
not as least as big as C/C++ etc. D always strives (and claims) 
to be an alternative to C++, Rust, Go and whatnot. In other 
words, the aim is to be a "superstar" language. Of course people 
compare it to bigger languages. (Python and Javascript are beside 
the point, due to their distinct history and use cases).

>
> Sure, D has problems. So does everything else. If your reaction 
> to discovering that a technology has serious flaws is to give 
> up in despair, you may as well quit computers.

Oh please! So you're saying that nothing is perfect so I have to 
put up with D's flaws, it's my basically fault, I'm not tough 
enough. Please! I wonder why other languages don't make me run 
away in despair. I guess, because they tend to sort things out 
and / or their flaws don't affect my everyday work.

> For example: you know what else has serious flaws with no 
> remedy in sight? Files.

Sure, but files don't affect my work negatively.

>
> If you dig deep enough, you will eventually discover that 
> everything is like this. Programming languages are like this, 
> operating systems are like this, even hardware is like this. If 
> you think you've found something that isn't like this, it's 
> almost certainly because you aren't looking closely enough.

Thanks for telling me. I didn't know that all technology is 
flawed. That's a first one. Thought is was only D, as C++ and C 
are perfect. But now I'll have a closer look at C, see if it has 
any flaws.

>
> The only way to find peace is to accept that (a) serious flaws 
> in the technology we depend on are an unavoidable fact of life, 
> and (b) in spite of that, we can still use technology to do 
> useful things and solve real problems.

D, at this stage, is flawed beyond repair. It's not only a 
technical issue but a cultural one. If a tool keeps you from 
doing useful things and impedes your progress, then yes, I 
reserve the right to change the tool. You talk as if anyone who's 
ever used D is obliged to use it and may not say anything bad 
about it. I refuse to argue at this level.