D has become unbearable and it needs to stop

[GrimMaple]

On Sunday, 11 June 2023 at 19:33:42 UTC, Rune Morling wrote:
> How come? Mike is saying you're more than welcome to state your 
> case? Are you suggesting that you'll only bother to do so if 
> it's a foregone conclusion that it'll indeed happen?

No. I am suggesting that there is no reason to believe that this 
"meeting" is going to be productive in any way. What going to 
happen is, I will join the meeting, and then get reiterated 
everything that's already been said here. Things like:

> It's just that I can't see how it would be effective.

If Walter can't see how it would be effective, and actually 
directly disagreeing with me:

> Making LTS versions balkanizes the language into multiple 
> languages, which will play hell with 3rd party library 
> maintenance.

How can I convince him otherwise? Just say "no u wrong"? This 
isn't going to work. Or, rather, why __would__ I even bother 
convincing him, when a clearly better solution for me would be to 
simply switch languages. Where I wouldn't even __need__ to 
support a GUI library to have one.

I have already said that, IMO, to understand my point, core D 
should try supporting some of the 3rd party. Maybe then they'll 
have to deal with all that versioning stuff. And maybe then 
they'll realize that LTS is needed. After all, there are things 
you can't understand until you're struck by them.

> That seems an odd tack to take for something you apparently 
> feel quite strongly about?

Some develop the langauge, some use the language. I'm not a 
language developer, and I don't intend on becoming one. If I 
wanted to, I'd just make my own language. Because there is only 
this much resistance I'm willing to go through __for free__. I 
have my daily job (in D!), but I'm still willing to commit in 
ways that can be found productive by both parties. Arguing with 
Walter isn't something I'm going to do, even for money.
As someone said in this thread previously, D is heavily biased 
towards language __developers__, not language __users__.

> From my limited perspective, the ideal case here is LDC and GDC 
> working together on the _de facto_ LTS versions re. backporting 
> important patches it seems. I'll leave the discussion of how 
> that could work to more knowledgeable people.

 From my limited perspective, GDC is awful and is not good for 
production. Then again, it's not like any other D compiler is 
"good enough", maybe LDC is. But anyway, in practice, GDC is a 
rare beast and most people use DMD/LDC. Maybe if GDC is promoted 
as "default" D compiler, then yes, we're getting there. But this 
wasn't suggested by anyone from the D team. They don't even want 
to spend 5 to 10 minutes coming up with ideas on my _direct_ 
question:

> What is your take, what will allow us to have an LTS branch?

So, again, there's simply nothing to discuss. I'm not big into 
how D team internals work, so how can I know what they want/need.

> In other words: This is _really close_ to happening is my 
> impression. Why wouldn't you want to be one of the people 
> helping to bring it over the goal line re. DLF buy-in so _you 
> actually get what you were after in the first place?_

Contributing to any open-source project isn't a privilege. At 
least it shouldn't be, in my opinion. Especially, when everyone 
is saying how they "lack manpower". But when issues are brought 
up, they just resort to "nah" or "do it yourself". And even when 
you _do_ it yourself, you end up in pages of useless arguing and 
very little productive being achieved. Or even your commits being 
reverted *sigh*

It's not that I expect D team to go and magically fix all my 
issues, and I never implied that. I'm jsut a language user 
~~crying for help~~ coming up with a proposal to improve the 
language. I don't have expertise to be a language developer. And 
I sure don't expect blatant disagreeing and responsibility 
dodging from the D team. What I expect is:

   1. Understanding the problem
   2. Proposing a possible solution with a list of requirments
   3. Analyzing possible pitfalls to discuss

Only then a meeting is necessary. Those 3 steps can easily be 
discussed in a forum post without wasting everyone's time with 
pointless banter. I outlined the preconditions for (actually any) 
meeting:

> I am willing to come to the meeting, fine, but only after some 
> common ground is found on
> topics of:
>
>    Needing LTS in the first place
>    Requirments and prerequisites for such an event
>    Your (D team's) proposition on how such thing could be 
> achieved, and what resources are necessary for it

Otherwise (I'm probably repeating myself too much) there's simply 
__nothing to talk about__. It will be a stupid, pointless, 
phylosophical debate with nothing productive being achieved.


You can read this as: I'm a user that is willing to contribute, 
but I'm not going to spend my time begging and arguing, because 
there are other languages. I already spent enough time trying to 
do good things for D, and there is a decent chunk of sunk cost 
fallacy, but this can't go on forever. What angries me the most 
is how everyone is blatantly ignorant about users that they lose. 
For the love of everything that's holy, I already started my most 
recent project in **C++**, because it's just easier, despite 
everything bad about the language.

Take this with a little grain of salt, because I already stopped 
beginning projects in D. LTS isn't even the only problem with the 
language. It's one of the many that make D actually _unusable_ in 
modern day programming. Unfortunately, none of them are being 
addressed.

P.S. I still don't understand why D team expects people to spend 
hours and days to get very little done in regards of 
productivity. Despite how many people have left because of those 
reasons. I don't understand why D treats 3rd party developers as 
morons/idiots/non-importnat people (please select the correct 
one), and why they still make no effort to support said 3rd 
party. Modern day programming is impossible without third-party. 
Because people would rather deal with C++ that has everything, 
than enjoy D that has nothing. (and it's not like D is really an 
enjoyable language to begin with)