I think you nailed the argument.
On Sunday, 21 December 2014 at 09:36:00 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
On Saturday, 20 December 2014 at 19:11:53 UTC, Vic wrote:
Second smaller thing I 'elude' to but don't verbalize in that
argument is my personal preference for a smaller language.
Less is better/faster.
I think this is the main reason why we have different
perspective on necessity of change. Smaller language simply
means that you need to put more complexity into actual
applications and while D looks all cool at the first glance
trying to get deeper (== implement BIG projects) inevitably
makes you encounter fundamental design quirks that affect
maintenance costs. Deadlnix has provided pretty good list of
suck problematic points.
While there is some value in splitting the spec into core
language and extensions I don't believe it is wise for D to
compete in simplicity domain.
Core and extensions/ plugins is a way to manage complexity and
resources. I cite some 'random dude'
http://www.codingninja.co.uk/best-programmers-quotes :
"Controlling complexity is the essence of computer programming."
I am a user of D, and I need something stable to lean on - if I
don't know the bug is what I wrote or what the compiler wrote, it
gets harder.
Further D does not have choice but to be excellent (via
simplicity) - there is not enough paid maintainers. (Struts what
I worked w/ before was written in 48 hours and had several
million 'users/developers' using it). So the pain of limited
resources forces excellence.
D does not have a choice but to make GC a DI/IOC - it will happen
as the only choice, popular or not. People can be upset about the
sacred cow or be confident of the outcome. I am in the second
case.
Alternative is death and I am optimist the committers will be
forced to trim down.
Vic
