Has D failed? ( unpopular opinion but I think yes )

[H. S. Teoh]

On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 04:31:51PM +0000, Paolo Invernizzi via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Friday, 12 April 2019 at 15:58:54 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
> > On Friday, 12 April 2019 at 15:49:48 UTC, Paolo Invernizzi wrote:
> > > It's time for D3.
> > > 
> > > - Paolo
> > 
> > The first step will be to stop saying D2 almost killed the language.
> > I was not a user of the language at that time, but my reading is
> > that the transition was a massive screwup. If the language doesn't
> > evolve it will die.

+1.

This is why I heartily support Andrei's recent stance about std.v2.  I
don't agree with his claim that it can't be done because of our present
(lack of) manpower.  There are other issues involved with that, that I
don't want to get into here, but D really needs to embrace change rather
than fear it.  Trying to get something as complex as a programming
language right from the get-go is impossible.  What you lay down at
first can only be an approximation at best, and is bound to need
revision later as your direction becomes clearer.  Whatever D started
out as was only a faint shadow of what it became today, and similarly
what we have today is only a faint shadow of what it might become in the
future.  The moment we let the past stop the future is the moment D is
dead.


> The transition between D1 and D2 was problematic, that's true, (but
> the problem was the duality between Phobos/Tango), but happened,
> successfully at the end.
> 
> The transition between Python 2 and Python 3 was problematic, but
> happened, and Python is flourishing...  does it worth? Being someone
> who worked with Python strings / bytes in both 2 and 3, yes, it
> worths!
[...]

Yes, and I hope std.v2 will happen. And not just happen, I hope there
will be a std.v3 in the future, and a std.v4 in the distant future.


T

-- 
Not all rumours are as misleading as this one.