DIP1000 observation

[Atila Neves]

On Monday, 26 August 2024 at 02:41:37 UTC, Paul Backus wrote:
> On Sunday, 25 August 2024 at 20:46:39 UTC, Lance Bachmeier 
> wrote:
>> [...]
>
> Actually the people running the language don't care about 
> "Rust-style programming" either--that's why they've been 
> clinging to the false simplicity of DIP 1000 instead of 
> adopting a more powerful (but more complex) Rust-inspired 
> approach to lifetimes.
>
> As far as I can tell, the only true motivating force is the 
> desire to go on social media like Twitter and Hacker News and 
> brag to uninformed internet users that "D is a memory safe 
> language." The fact that this claim does not hold up to 
> scrutiny is beside the point, because most people will never 
> bother to check.
>
> Needless to say, with such leadership, D will never achieve 
> anything of substance in this area.

The motivating force for me is to have compiler-enforced memory 
safety without GC allocated memory, for when that's actually 
needed. I agree however that we need to rethink DIP1000.