Unofficial wish list status.(Jul 2008)

[Bill Baxter]

Don wrote:
> Sean Kelly wrote:
>>> so wut is that stuff u want in d. u haven't even tried d2 so it loox 
>>> like u r interested more in bitchin' than in making real
>> suggestions. now seriously. speak up. what is it that u as a member of 
>> the community wanna say and walter doesn't
>> listen.
>>
>> I've tried D2.  I've read the spec as well.  I simply don't like it.  
> 
> By D2, I imagine you just mean "the const system"?
> (Most of the other things in D2 seem to have been very popular; if D2- 
> without-const was released, I reckon most of the community would start 
> using it).
> 
> It seems to me that the view of the community is "We though we wanted 
> const. But now that we've seen what const involves, we don't want it.".
> 

I think there was a lot of hope on the part of the community that a 
const system designed from scratch with 20/20 hind-sight could avoid 
some of the practical problems with the C++ const system.  But it seems 
the answer to that was "no".  The system we've got now seems to solve 
some *theoretical* problems with the C++ const system at the cost of 
making practical usage slightly more cumbersome.

But I don't hope for a more usable const any more.  I'd just like to see 
a reduction in the number of flavors of D code.  If we all moved to D2, 
I think we could pretty much just ignore invariant until it actually has 
some practical benefit.  What's left of D2 const is pretty much like 
what many are used to with C++.  Yeh, so you have to write some methods 
multiple times for different constnesses, etc... you get used to it.  I 
think I could get used to D2 const anyway.

 > At the very least, it's a public relations disaster from the point of
 > view of the language designers. They are assuming that with more time
 > and education, the legitimate complaints about first const system will
 > be forgotten, and the const system will be embraced by the community.
 > But there is a very big risk here -- what if it is NOT eventually
 > accepted? What if the community concensus remains that const is just too
 > complicated, without enough benefit? And the language designers remain
 > steadfastly devoted to const? That's a catastrophic scenario, and
 > unfortunately not unlikely.
 >
 > The fact that someone as senior in the community as yourself is
 > expressing profound dissatisfaction indicates that the risk is very real.

It would be sad to see the D2 const swerve shake off all the old D 
supporters off the D train.  But on the other hand, new folks do seem to 
keep popping up who would rather use D2 than D1.

--bb