On Tuesday, 27 November 2012 at 18:38:57 UTC, Eldar Insafutdinov
wrote:
On Tuesday, 27 November 2012 at 17:49:00 UTC, Rob T wrote:
No matter, as you've suggested (and I think shown), D can
still be adjusted to get rid of at least some of the crippling
effects of inconsistency, and even a small fix to an
inconsistency can potentially create a big improvement.
I also believe that it is possible to introduce these changes
in an iterative manner. Each step will provide significant
improvements to the language. If everybody agrees that this
proposed change is worth exploring into and has chances to be
included in D, I am willing to commit my time to implement it.
Well I do agree in principle, but politically there may be a
large resistance due to the desire to stabilize the language such
that it will no longer create breaking changes.
I of course think that stability is essential, but at the same
time it can also be a bad thing. What we should try to achieve,
is a clear and practical way to allow the language to stabilize,
yet at the same time also allow it to continue to evolve for the
better which inevitably means making breaking changes. If we
continue long the same path C/C++ took, then in short order we'll
end up with C/C++ all over again. I can already taste it, and I
don't like that taste! Look at C++11, was that really an
improvement?
In any event, we'll need to see the movers and shakers of D come
on board with considering how D can still stabilize, but also be
made to evolve for the better, not like C++ is doing, but really
for the better in fundamental ways.
So, let's wait and see what kind of comments show up in here.
--rt
