On Thursday, 25 September 2014 at 22:48:12 UTC, Andrei
Alexandrescu wrote:
On 9/25/14, 2:03 PM, eles wrote:
On Tuesday, 23 September 2014 at 14:29:06 UTC, Sean Kelly
wrote:
lack of attention paid to tightening up what we've already
got and
deprecating old stuff that no one wants any more. And
inconsistency
in how things work in the language.
The feeling that I have is that if D2 does not get a serious
cleanup at
this stage, then D3 must follow quickly (and such move will be
unstoppable), otherwise people will fall back to D1 or C++next.
I'm not sharing that feeling at all. From that perspective all
languages are in need of a "serious cleanup". -- Andrei
Those *all* languages, at least some of them, have good excuses
(C++'s roots in C and the great advantage that is able to compile
C code too, to some extent - history is on his side) and powerful
driving factors (the whole might of Oracle and Microsoft). And,
most of all, they already have a fair share of the market.
And they served a lot of users quite well and those users aren't
ready to drop them quite easily for what happens to be the cool
kid of the day in the programming language world.
D has to provide quality in order to compensate for the( lack of
the)se factors.
