The forked elephant in the room

[GrimMaple]

On Monday, 15 January 2024 at 23:33:23 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> BTW, has anyone else tried to get changes into another 
> language? I have. It's a years long process, and is extremely 
> difficult to get it through.

Just because it's bad somewhere else doesn't justify leaving 
things as is here

> P.S. We also have some contributors who have a long track 
> record of superb contributions. They also have a consistent 
> commitment to promptly fixing anything that goes wrong with it 
> down the road. Yes, they get a lot less scrutiny. They've 
> earned it.
Care to give a few names?

> In the spirit of that, I won't be interfering with anybody's 
> forks. I made no attempt to interfere with Tango, Amber, nor 
> any other forks.

Did that work out well for you, or D, in the end? It's very 
interesting how you often use "lack of manpower" as an excuse to 
not get things done, yet you are more than willing to just let 
this "manpower" go without even an iota of interest or any 
attempts to make peace

> I can't help but think a preferred solution already has a lot 
> of buy-in for it, and so needs less justification?

It's not the need of justification that people hate, it's the 
fact that you stop useful contributions based on some 
bike-shedding level issue, whilst allowing yourself to push 
fundamentally flawed features (ImportC for instance). If you 
showed the same level of concern for your own features -- there 
wouldn't be so much backlash. Instead, you can't even be bothered 
to __read__ the string interpolation that works well. And, on the 
other hand, you push in @live (that doesn't work), ImportC (that 
doesn't work), and the list goes on.

I know that you like to say on hackernews that "D has ownership" 
and "D can ImportC", but I'm sorry, it only has ownership in an 
isolated dmd test suite, and it all works really poorly in the 
real world. Same goes for ImportC. If you can't compile 99% of C 
code (I'll give you 95%, fine) it's useless in practice.