DIP1000 observation

[Lance Bachmeier]

On Sunday, 25 August 2024 at 21:52:36 UTC, Bruce Carneal wrote:

> 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.

I wish we'd make all the safety stuff opt-in, because it adds 
complexity but in many cases doesn't provide any benefit. I've 
never understood the desire to force it on everyone whether they 
have a use for it or not.

>> 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.

Oh, I'll keep using the language, but I'll focus on continuing to 
make D a full-featured option for data analysis, which is 
basically done. Arguing against language complexity just burns 
through time I could spend on that.