Windows experience is atrocious

[bachmeier]

On Monday, 31 July 2023 at 07:44:43 UTC, Petar Kirov [ZombineDev] 
wrote:

>> `in ref` should just mean `in`.
>
> I disagree. It should be `const scope ref` (i.e. arguments 
> should always be passed by reference). The use case for 
> "always" ref is matching the ABI of a third-party libraries or 
> providing stable public ABI for the current project itself. 
> There's plenty of old code that used `in ref` to mean `const 
> [maybe scope(*)] ref`. Deprecating `in ref` caused a ton of 
> unnecessary churn and I don't think we gained anything in the 
> end. Allowing `in ref` is simpler (in terms of the effects it 
> has on existing code) and more effective (supporting a (perhaps 
> niche) use-case, that could otherwise be a blocker on the 
> adoption of `-preview=in`).
>
> (*) Since `scope` was implemented much later and not all safety 
> checks were enabled without `-preview=dip1000`, there had been 
> many instances where the function

Rule #1 for the evolution of D: The user should never have to 
learn any of this stuff. I see a post like this and it has the 
feel of a Haskell or Rust discussion.