On Tuesday, 27 January 2015 at 10:26:54 UTC, ketmar wrote:
On Tue, 27 Jan 2015 10:21:52 +0000, Jonathan Marler wrote:
Interesting points. Thanks for the response, it's a relief to
hear
people making sense :)
the funny thing is that Ola is a kind of "bad child" too. heh.
Hey, I have gray hairs in my beard! Show me sum respect, huh?
I was a silent D forum lurker for... 7 years or so, waiting for a
mature C++ replacement. Then decided to jump in and push for more
planning and GC free programming support. We have @nogc now,
which is good, but that is about it.
A simple statement like "D syntax will be reworked in 2016, lets
form a working group" and "we need to define goals for GC, let us
form a working group" would go a long way. But that would mean
giving up control. Which Andrei and Walter are not going to do,
so that means capable people will keep sitting on the fence (who
wants to waste their time to have their efforts vetoed?)
What is unfortunate is that the D heads keep adding features
faster then the old ones can be fixed... Recently STL
compatibility became an official goal and C++ exceptions... I say
no more than this: I cant think of a single C++ library I would
link to that would require that.
With an orderly executed plan and feature freeze D could be
production ready in 2-3 years. With no plan... multiply by at
least 3, so we have 6-9 more years to wait assuming the feature
set now is frozen...
Nice, I have to go back to C++ now... C ya.
