Stable D version?

[Mehrdad]

On Tuesday, 23 April 2013 at 06:07:55 UTC, Chris Cain wrote:
> On Tuesday, 23 April 2013 at 05:57:16 UTC, Mehrdad wrote:
>> I stand corrected I guess. I'll stop thinking as well.
>> ...
>> Okay sure, have fun watching people use languages that make 
>> more sense to them than D I guess.
>
> *sigh*
>
> I really wish you'd be more cooperative in this conversation.
> I certainly don't want to drive anyone away from D.
> I really don't understand why someone would say "If you don't 
> do what I want, I'm leaving!" expecting to get their way, 
> though.

That's not quite what I'm saying.
I'm just trying to make a point, which I'll repeat below.


> I'm trying to explain to you what's going on so that you can 
> understand what is happening so that it will "make sense to 
> you."


The trouble is that you've already failed before you started.


People hate C++ because it's unintuitive. I can spend all day 
telling you about why C++'s behavior in e.g. the Abrahams-Dimov 
example (look it up) is _TECHNICALLY_ the correct/expected 
behavior.

But in the end of the day it just doesn't make sense.
I might win the battle, but C++ has already lost the war.


So my point is, whether or not you can convince me this behavior 
is correct (and you probably won't), it's not going to change 
whether people find D easy to use.


There's a reason why no other popular language (that I know of) 
translates "==" into a bitwise comparison of structs. What do you 
think the reason might be?