The Case Against Autodecode

[poliklosio via Digitalmars-d]

On Friday, 13 May 2016 at 06:50:49 UTC, Bill Hicks wrote:
> On Thursday, 12 May 2016 at 20:15:45 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>> (...)
> Wow, that's eleven things wrong with just one tiny element of 
> D, with the potential to cause problems, whether fixed or not.  
> And I get called a troll and other names when I list half a 
> dozen things wrong with D, my posts get removed/censored, etc, 
> all because I try to inform people not to waste time with D 
> because it's a broken and failed language.
>
> *sigh*
>
> Phobos, a piece of useless rock orbiting a dead planet ... the 
> irony.

You get banned because there is a difference between torpedoing a 
project and having constructive criticism.
Also, you are missing the point by claiming that a technical 
problem is sure to kill D. Note that very successful languages 
like C++, python and so on also have undergone heated discussions 
about various features, and often live design mistakes for many 
years. The real reason why languages are successful is what they 
enable, not how many quirks they have.
Quirks are why they get replaced by others 20 years later. :)