Civility

[Chris]

On Wednesday, 29 June 2022 at 02:18:20 UTC, zjh wrote:
>
>
> If you want to say what `specific problems` D has, you can 
> discuss them. If you say that D has problems, `D` has problems. 
> This is not good.

We all know that D has numerous problems that render it unusable 
(not minor quirks one can live with), and I won't reiterate them 
here, you just need to browse around in the forum a little bit 
and you'll see that the same issues keep coming up year after 
year, and even the leadership has realized that "something is 
rotten in the state of D" [1], Andrei only phrased it 
differently: "a variety of decisions that did not withstand the 
test of time". What a nice way of putting it. If you only 
mentioned `autodecode` a few years ago, you'd be in for a 
flamewar. Now it's the big revelation that it was a bad idea. If 
Andrei describes how C++ finally came out of the "dark ages" and 
suggests that this is the way forward for D, what else is this 
but the acknowledgement that D is now in the same position as C++ 
was years ago? So don't ask me about "specific problems", if the 
leadership itself compares D to C++ during its winter. It is also 
an acknowledgement that the critics were right about many of D's 
issues.

In my view, D is a weird mix of an 0.x language and C++. It has 
loads of baggage and dead weight, just like C++, but breaking 
changes and new features are introduced as if it was still below 
1.0. So you get the worst of both: the clutter an old language 
accumulates in the attic over the years and the instability and 
unpredictability of a new language.

Why would I want to use it for any serious stuff?

[1] e.g.
- https://forum.dlang.org/thread/sl7l32$1umj$1@digitalmars.com
- https://forum.dlang.org/post/slnb0b$1edf$1@digitalmars.com