An appeal

[kris]

Walter Bright wrote:
> kris wrote:
> 
>> Personally, I have to wonder what compelling reason there is to 
>> continue ploughing so much effort into helping make D a success, 
>> behind the scenes, when it appears to have so little value in your eyes.
> 
> 
> Language design is hardly cut and dried. There is rarely a right and a 
> wrong answer. There are only benefits and costs, and those vary from 
> application to application, and peoples' opinions of them vary as well.
> 
> You and I have different opinions about how certain things should work. 
> Nothing more should be read into it than that.


Excuse me ... you and the *community* have different opinions !

Do yourself, and everyone here, a big favour and stop insisting this 
this is between you and I. By doing so, you send a clear message that 
the opinions of everyone else clamouring (or begging) for exactly the 
same thing is utterly worthless. That the community segment requesting 
this small change simply don't know what they are talking about. Fools 
that we all are.

The attitude here is exactly what was alluded to in the original post; 
you make a point of utterly ignoring (and removing) the principal 
points, and contort what little is left. Frankly, such behaviour should 
not be tolerated within this community.

To make it perfectly clear, yet again, we're *all* asking for the 
equivalent of a combined import and alias:

import x.y.z as n;

where n becomes a required prefix. We're not interested in using alias 
as a secondary instruction, for all the myriad reasons noted that you 
have yet to even acknowledge exist. And the "static import", as you've 
surely seen by the many negative responses, simply does not cut the 
mustard with the D community.

I'm reattaching the original post, Since the essence there has been lost:






Walter Bright wrote:

 > kris wrote:
 >
 >> Anyone would think we were trying to sabotage the language,
 >
 >
 >
 > Nobody thinks that. We are all trying to get the best design for D 
possible. That doesn't mean we are all going to agree on what the best 
design is. There's no cause to label a difference of opinion as 
sabotage, or any of the other epithets bandied about in this 
disagreement (or some of the previous ones).


You know, Walter, I'm more than willing to apologize profusely if you 
honestly feel you've been undeservedly slighted. And will do so 
earnestly and sincerely.

On the same token, there's little point in me denying that your approach 
here, as in previous similar discourse, is frustrating to the extreme; 
to the point where it often appears there's a notable lack of integrity, 
despite the presence of various other attributes which might otherwise 
be conducive to progress. Some will quietly agree with that, and some 
will disagree. Doesn't matter much.

What does matter (to me and probably to most of us) is the success of D 
in the one place where we can happily use it on a daily basis: where we 
get paid to use it. A small percentage of the D supporters go out of 
their way in order to help make that happen, Yet, you appear content to 
flatly dismiss a collective request for what seems to be a minor change.

Makes zero sense, and when my frustration with this aspect boils over 
then it's not exactly a big surprise to you or anyone else. You and I 
have a history of such exchanges, and that doesn't help either. However, 
it is more than thoroughly disappointing to see the community opinion 
dismissed in such a manner. Makes it harder to retain a level of faith 
in the genuine integrity of the overall situation; try as one might.

I'd like to gently suggest you place more value in those supporting D 
with their sustained efforts. Much more than zero. They are, after all, 
the very people who will be the most profound evangelists. That's not to 
say you should be swayed by individual opinion. Not at all. On the other 
hand, taking the position that you alone have the right answers while a 
significant group of experienced developers are united (with zero 
detractors!) in a request for a minor yet far-reaching positive change, 
is one that tends to shut the door on entirely the wrong people.

You've labeled this a "difference of opinion". If so, it would appear to 
be between you and a proactive, motivated, and valuable segment of the 
community.

Personally, I have to wonder what compelling reason there is to continue 
ploughing so much effort into helping make D a success, behind the 
scenes, when it appears to have so little value in your eyes. I'm far 
from being the first to feel this way, and probably won't be the last. 
Naturally one can hardly expect you to be able to provide such a reason, 
but I will urge you again to place some merit in the experience and 
knowledge of this group. As individuals, none of us are infallible.