DIP1000 observation

[Bruce Carneal]

On Sunday, 25 August 2024 at 20:46:39 UTC, Lance Bachmeier wrote:
> On Sunday, 25 August 2024 at 17:55:04 UTC, Bruce Carneal wrote:
>> The lesson I take from the DIP 1000 history is that we need 
>> something that is simpler to explain, something that is much 
>> easier to use correctly, something that models the problem 
>> more clearly.
>>
>> Bug reporting/fixing is great, but sometimes the bug pattern 
>> indicates a rethink is in order.  I believe this is one of 
>> those times.
>
> IMO the lesson is that this kind of complexity does not belong 
> in the language by default.

I agree, as do others that I've talked with.

> The second lesson is that the folks deciding on the direction 
> of the language don't care at all about new users or basically 
> anyone that's not doing Rust-style programming.

If you look at programming languages across three dimensions, 
safety X performance X convenience (thanks Paul), Rust appears to 
have capitulated on convenience in order to stand out in safety 
and performance.  I believe we can and should do much better than 
Rust on this pareto surface but we'll need something better than 
DIP1000 to make headway on the (safety X performance) front.

>
> But I'm not going to waste more time fighting this battle.

Thanks for your past exertions on behalf of a better language for 
us all.  I hope you can find some other battle worth fighting or 
rejoin this one as/when better alternatives come to the fore.