C++17

[Chris Wright via Digitalmars-d]

On Wed, 27 Jan 2016 22:18:49 +0000, deadalnix wrote:

> On Wednesday, 27 January 2016 at 20:51:43 UTC, rsw0x wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 27 January 2016 at 20:31:33 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 27 January 2016 at 09:00:17 UTC, rsw0x wrote:
>>>> The response from the D community seems to be an overwhelming "It's
>>>> fine as is" when it's obviously not. Which is making me question
>>>> sinking more time into D if there actually is no cohesive plan to
>>>> make D an actual C++ competitor rather than a toy language as it
>>>> currently stands.
>>>
>>> I can't take any of this seriously as long as ConcernedDev1950 do not
>>> provide any PR.
>>
>> ConcernedDev1950 will go use a language that doesn't require them to
>> write the standard library.
> 
> Apparently no, they come here and cry and get nothing done.

I just want to do my own thing. When I try doing it in D, I often have to 
work on three or four dependencies as well. Sometimes it's a good tradeoff 
-- D occasionally has something no other language I'm willing to use has. 
Most of the time it's not.

That's not crying; it's practicality.