Clojure and Pull Request Controversy
Chris
wendlec at tcd.ie
Thu Nov 29 10:14:37 UTC 2018
On Thursday, 29 November 2018 at 06:17:11 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
> On 11/28/2018 3:29 AM, Chris wrote:
>> I sincerely hope you don't identify with the OP.
>
> I did say it was controversial.
Funnily enough because they are too conservative, whereas D might
have her refers to as "feature bloat". I'd call it overstretching.
>
>> Yesterday I was innocently thinking if and how LDC+Android
>> could be integrated into Android Studio via CMake etc., but
>> then it occurred to me that even if I / we succeeded in doing
>> so, the D code itself might still break anytime, because of
>> "more radical ideas". Maybe D should be rebranded as
>> "Minefield".
>
> There is a disconnect with not wanting radical new ideas, and
> wanting autodecode removed (which will result in silent
> breakage).
You do realize that autodecode is an old flaw that has to go
sooner or later. It negatively affects string handling
performance, is not even correct and is a deal breaker in a world
where string handling is omnipresent. So removing autodecode
would benefit the language and the users in the long run and is
both necessary and welcome. It's not a "new idea" you might want
to try, it is strictly necessary, just like fixing the brakes of
your car is not a "radical new idea", but necessary. And
reasonable paths to fix it have been proposed.
However, coming up with "radical new ideas" about memory
management and the like and making it a feature of the language
that breaks valid existing code only to see what happens, is a
baaaad idea. I'd suggest something like the "D labs" for it where
you can test all those great new ideas and features for a minimum
of one year. What if a feature turns out to be sh*it? What if you
realize that partial constructors sound great, but you cannot
have partial deconstructors? D should have a "laboratory branch"
for this but not use users as guinea pigs.
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list