Breaking changes in Visual C++ 2015

[H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d]

On Sat, May 09, 2015 at 09:02:27AM -0700, Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On 5/9/15 5:28 AM, Chris wrote:
> >
> >There is a tendency to bash and trash D for not having the exact same
> >feature that some other language has, or for not having a tool that
> >exists for some other language. This often gives the impression that
> >D is unusable and complete crap, unless, of course, it will get
> >feature X demanded by user Y. This type of discussion is not
> >constructive, but guided by personal likes and dislikes and only
> >creates a lot of noise with no real results.
> >
> >There is always room for improvement in software. All programs could
> >be better, all tools could be better. But that something could be
> >better doesn't mean that it's crap.
> 
> Well put. A few thoughts about that:
> 
> 1. Some of these, even some of the more egregious ones, come from
> people who by their acts seem to genuinely enjoy the language and
> contribute to it. Are we taking the notion of tough love a bit too
> seriously?
> 
> 2. There's a lot of resistance to the leadership saying positive
> things about the language. Soon as Walter replied that our toolchain
> isn't that bad, others replied with all they could to counter him - in
> what's now quite a predictable pattern. My interpretation of this
> phenomenon is that the leadership tooting its own horn makes people
> nervous ("are these guys in denial? so no more improvements on this
> stuff?" etc). I guess we should do less of it.
> 
> 3. We need to improve the curb appeal of D.
[...]

FWIW, I don't believe that the leadership tooting its own horn makes
people nervous. Nervousness does not trigger the kind of ascerbic
comments.

I think the *real* cause of these comments is the perception (whether or
not it has basis in reality is up for debate) that certain long-standing
nagging problems have not yet been fixed, and doesn't seem like they
will be fixed anytime soon, and yet statements are made that seem (in
the eyes of the commenter) to imply that these problems aren't there.
These problems may be minor, peripheral, or not very important in the
grand scheme of things, but they are nevertheless very obvious to the
commenter because they encounter it frequently, or had a bad experience
with it, like a mosquito in the room that causes endless annoyance and
increasing frustration even if its worst effect is a mere itch at the
end of the day.

Blanket statements about how good D (or that particular part of D) is
may be wrongly taken as a denial of the existence of said minor (or
not-so-minor) problem along with its associated frustrating experience,
which aggravates the commenter to the point of posting an ascerbic
response.

Another cause is that D has a core that's so ideal -- perhaps too ideal
-- that people have developed an expectation that *everything* in D must
be perfect, or else. They are not satisfied with a partial solution that
meets 99% of the cases; they want 100.000%. The problem is, there is no
single solution that solves every possible case.  Nobody agrees on how
to get from the 99% to the 100%. Everyone has a different ideal of what
perfection means. So no matter which route you choose, *somebody* is
bound to get upset. Then when the chosen solution has been implemented
and touted, the people who didn't agree with that solution get ticked
off and react negatively.

How to solve this, I don't know. That's up to the leadership to solve.
;-) But at least let's be clear that this has nothing to do with
nervousness or tough love or anything of that sort.


T

-- 
WINDOWS = Will Install Needless Data On Whole System -- CompuMan