grauzone wrote: >>> D2 is in danger of becoming a camel i.e. a horse designed by a >>> committee... >>> >>> Frank. >> >> ? >> >> As far as I know, the 'committee' consists of a gang of three, with >> Walter firmly at the driving seat, all working very hard to flesh out a >> language, create an innovative library and quality compiler. All the >> tools and libraries you mention are being created. In addition there's >> also LDC which is shaping up nicely. Not to say everything is already >> here, but that is a question of time and manpower, not direction. >> >> What's up with all the negativity lately? Impatience? > > Some people think D2 tries too much, and neglects the really important > things at the same time. For example, D2 tries to solve the concurrency > issue (which is a hot topic which makes D look good at sites like > stackoverflow), while still relying on a 20 years old linker written in > assembler.
So the better direction according to some is to stagnate language design for D2 so Walter Bright can reinvent the linker? So that years later when asked why D didn't do more for concurrency when it was needed, you'd have to reply: "well there wasn't any time to deal with such trivial issues, the language designer had to work on the toolchain."
