On Fri, 28 Nov 2014 19:35:29 -0800 Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 11/28/2014 7:22 PM, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote: > > same for me. i was gently pushing our development team towards D (heh, > > and i'm in position to do that) but now i put a veto on D (yet i'm > > still using heavily patched D for my own pet projects and have no plans > > to change that). contrary to what one may think i did that not for code > > breakage, but due to the developers that continuously rejecting to break > > our code. we already has the language which is riddled by legacy crap, > > Please list your top two or three. top one, after which i vetoed D: issue #13670 as for others -- i was ranting here many times. `foreach (auto n; ...)`? yes, this is *not* a pure cosmetic issue: i'm still not able to logically explain why `foreach (n; ...)` doesn't reuse the existing variable but declaring new local. `foreach (; ...)`? `new char[256]`, but not `new char[256][256]` (yes, i know; just make `new char[256]` invalid too and that's all). '@' in some attribute but not in another. warnings about prefix function attributes. and so on. sure, those aren't very big things per se, but they making language inconsistent. and if i have to teach people inconsistent language, i'll choose C++: it's very bad, i don't even want to thing about it, especially after what D promises and gives to me, but... but C++ at least has alot of reusable code. and D is in position where it can try to not accumulate legacy crap -- that's what i expecting from the modern language. it's ok for us to fix the broken code if that breakage makes language better. ah, i wrote that many times already. i'm still hoping that something will change (that's why i'm still writing this shit), but i backed to the position "nope, we'll not go D yet". for now i'll wait for either D that rapidly changes removing crap and fixing legacy things, or for D that is 20+ years old and has alot of code written in it.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
