On Tuesday, 27 January 2015 at 01:32:23 UTC, Mike wrote:
On Monday, 26 January 2015 at 19:51:08 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 1/26/2015 3:39 AM, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d wrote:
Personally, I'd much prefer that we not make this change.
It's good to have this discussion.
Previously, it's all been advocacy and "break my code" by
forcing a change from pure => @pure.
Yes, please! (at least about the "break my code" part)
Just a few days ago on slashdot, an anonymous D user wrote:
"A horrible mix of keywords and annotation syntax for
function/method
attributes ('const', 'pure', and 'nothrow' are all keywords,
but
'@property', and '@nogc' are annotations)"
for why he won't use D anymore.
Not a deal-breaker for me, but I agree with the sentiment, and
I think it makes for a more professional language if such
inconsistencies are addressed.
Frankly, I think that is a great bikeshedding non-issue that
distracts us from what is important.
Yes, there is no correlation between what's important, and what
people choose to work on, because there is no consensus on
what's important, and if there is it's usually beyond the
ability of most contributors, so it doesn't get worked on
anyway. Personally, I find small changes like this welcome
because they make for a more polished experience.
I hope that by doing this PR, we can actually decide that it
isn't worth it, i.e. I'd be happy to get consensus and revert
it.
A dangerous precedent. I suspect the push-back against this
change has probably ruined any chance of further polishing the
language.
From: https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13388#c27
***
I really think that we've passed the point where it's worth
fixing it.
NO!!!! This attitude is the biggest problem D has.
Please, watch Scott Meyer's talk again. "Most D code is yet to
be written".
The future benefits of fixing this kind of crap, are huge.
***
In fact, it is the attitude against change that has put me on
the fence about D, when I was quite an advocate about a year
ago. It has also made me reluctant to put forth the necessary
effort to study and make any significant contributions because
the controversy, as exhibited here, would likely erase my
entire investment. Instead, I have begun exploring other
options while keeping one foot on the raft.
I agree that, in general, D should take a more disciplined
approach to development, but keep in mind that if contributors
have to go through too much controversy and bureaucracy we're
not going to see much change (perhaps that's what some want).
I feel for Walter. He's damned if he does and damned if he
doesn't. Somehow, this herd of cats need to figure out where
it wants to go, and I need to figure out whether to go all in
or jump ship.
Mike
+1 to all of this as it mirrors exactly how I feel about D at
this point in time.
I get the impression it will never be finished because too many
are afraid of important breaking changes that seem necessary to
get through the last 5%-10% of D2.
Cheers,
uri
