A few questions

[Chris]

On Thursday, 25 June 2020 at 13:18:22 UTC, JN wrote:
> On Tuesday, 23 June 2020 at 16:57:04 UTC, Chris wrote:
>>
>> As for D3, a pity there are no plans for it, it galls me that 
>> D should remain in its current state as it undoubtedly has 
>> good features.
>
> What would your D3 contain? The problem is that many people 
> have different vision for the "better D" and they are often 
> incompatible. Some people for example would like to make @safe 
> the default, some people would like to drop OOP, some people 
> would like to drop the GC, many different ideas going on around.

Sorry, I didn't see your post. What would D3 contain? First of 
all, all half-baked features should go, anything that is only 
so-so and where it is evident that it doesn't work as it should 
because of conflicts with std.fancy etc., bin it.

In general, keep features that are industry proven, I'd say GC 
and OOP should be available. An alternative to GC too. So the 
first thing would be to check D3 against industry standards / use 
in general and also ask companies that use D specifically (what 
features they use and why etc.) There should be no ideological 
flamewars like OOP vs structs. If there's demand in the industry, 
keep that feature.

The rest, the bikeshedding bit about @safe etc., whatever is 
agreed upon in the end, it just has to be consistent. There's 
nothing worse for a developer than not knowing exactly what 
s/he's doing simply because the language is not clear about it. 
Clear and consistent rules. Also, talking about @safe and such 
features, one has to think about the long term implications of 
features. A feature might seem to be a good idea, but can cause 
loads of trouble in production. I think D has enough hindsight by 
now to make informed decisions. Informed, pragmatic, industry 
oriented - not ideological or nerdy.