Plan for D

[nkm1]

On Wednesday, 19 May 2021 at 12:30:18 UTC, zjh wrote:

> Those who tells us to do `DC++` alone just want us to leave. 
> They want to make `d`  `DC#`.

It was already that! It changed horses in midstream, trying to 
become DC++.

> `We can start with the details of where we feel uncomfortable`.

There are various problems with DMD and other software, those are 
all solvable or tolerable.
The big technical problem is that the D programming language 
tries to offer good support
for different kinds of memory management. This is a hell of a 
task, especially in a situation of limited resourses (manpower 
etc).
As far as I can tell, the plan (implicitly) is (was?) this: 
implement some kind of limited-borrow-checker-kind-of-thing 
(dip1000), implement refcounting of pointers and use dip1000 to 
optimize the refcounting. And then presumably abandon the GC.
For now it doesn't seem to work, probably because it's very 
difficult to do all that. Meanwhile, GC does work, even though 
it's not a great one.

> If we don't act, and wait for `d author` to lead us or give us 
> directions. Maybe it will be `a long time`.
> However, we still need to use `d`. Let's start with `small 
> details` one by one.

What's the point of talking about small details when there is an 
elephant in the room.