On Tuesday, 2 September 2014 at 13:15:02 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
On Tuesday, 2 September 2014 at 08:24:42 UTC, ketmar via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
please note that i'm not trying to say that D developers doing
everything wrong nor that they are incompetent. D is great.
but we can
make it even better. just stop buying "enterprise need
stability" bs:
we have enough "enterprise-stable" languages already, let's
make one
that is attractive to programmers.
I am by all means regular advocate of changes but your are
pushing it to other radically harmful attitude. There is a huge
difference between maintaining own set of patches that work for
cases you personally use language for and maintaining feature
constantly in the publicly available upstream. Things break in
most unexpected ways when exposes to even small / medium user
bases, we have it all the time.
For example, this specific syntax is absolutely guaranteed to
result in weird issues because it is ambiguous with already
existing one (that applies attributes to declarations). In the
end it gives you _nothing_. Saving two characters for already
short idiom that is not even supposed to be easy to use is just
a joke. There is simply no way something as trivial as that is
going to pull its weight.
There is a limited amount of maintenance effort we can invest
into adding new stuff to language and it needs to be used
wisely.
Something I'm feeling as a newcomer to D reading these threads,
is that the community has already thought of a number of
guidelines for Phobos development, but they are buried in the
forum. I also saw one which is controversial - the idea that
embedded systems programmers should be able to use some subset of
Phobos without bloating their executable. I'd have no idea
whether we are trying to maintain that property of Phobos where
it already exists, or ignore it. Similarly, there are a lot of
diverse goals/use cases people have in mind - the std.logger
thread has some.
It feels like Phobos has a good amount of 'breadth'' but could do
with more "depth". Have we already tried some exercises which
would flesh out more "Phobos requirements" (I.e. That we aspire
to for existing modules and require for new ones?)
