An Anti-Big Feature Request
Sean Kelly
sean at f4.ca
Fri Dec 14 15:52:40 PST 2007
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
> "downs" <default_357-line at yahoo.de> wrote in message
> news:fjv3hq$15gd$1 at digitalmars.com...
>> I have an Anti-Big Feature request; that is, a request against new
>> features.
>>
>> When this const issue will finally be solved to most peoples'
>> satisfaction,
>> kindly consider inserting a period of consolidation.
>>
>> No more sudden, game-changing new super features for a while.
>> Maybe fix some long-standing bugs.
>> Maybe finally implement the generational GC.
>> Maybe actually get DbC inheritance to work like it's supposed to.
>> Maybe give memory back to the OS on occasion.
>> Maybe revisit some 1.0 concepts and consider if they're still needed.
>> Maybe add small things everybody can agree are good (return type deduction
>> comes to mind).
>> Aim for low-hanging fruits, stuff we can agree on for once.
>> How about a redundancy free import syntax?
>>
>> D's 2.0 series has been characterized by a series of fundamental changes
>> (const, closures),
>> but what really makes a new release great is the polish. Small stuff
>> everybody looks forward to.
>> Clean up the issues with the OMF tools? Maybe even consider switching to
>> PE?
>> (Heresy, I know; however, it is fact that GDC has no problem with
>> megabyte-long symbol names)
>>
>> Oh, and please, delay the AST macros for a while. My head is still
>> spinning with closures. :)
>> --downs
>
> Agreed on (virtually) every count.
>
>> PS:
>> Personal wish list:
>> * TRACED EXCEPTIONS ;____; yeah I wish
>
> Huh! Tango's had those for months.
>
> Yeah. What.
I'm looking into giving memory back to the OS as well. It will take
some re-engineering of the GC, but it seems quite doable.
Sean
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list