DIP1000 observation

[Nick Treleaven]

On Monday, 26 August 2024 at 21:53:25 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> It feels like D is trying too hard to be what it isn't. The 
> original design with GC was clean, ergonomic, and productive. 
> This is the core of D that still constitutes the major reason 
> why I'm still using it.  Then the @nogc crowd showed up, and we 
> bent over backwards to please them. As a result, the language 
> was bent out of shape with attribute soup and half-solutions to 
> the wrong problems that did little to improve the experience of 
> existing D users, while still failing to please the GC 
> objectioners.

The goal of DIP1000 is to make pointers to stack memory @safe, 
not really about making non-GC heap allocation safe (though it 
may help with that and is a consideration). Strong support for 
memory-safe stack allocation absolutely is what D needs, because 
its aims are to produce efficient code which is not bug-prone. 
There can be debate on how what kinds of interface can be @safe, 
but the core of DIP1000 is doing what it should.