On Tuesday, 10 February 2015 at 17:00:18 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 2/9/15 11:28 PM, weaselcat wrote:
On Tuesday, 10 February 2015 at 07:17:11 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
At the same time stuff like RefCounted is a mess.
+1
(Sorry for the noise, just wanted to share the opinion. :) )
One actionable item would be to point at a code fragment and
argue "wtf - here's some good evidence". Thanks! -- Andrei
My position isn't as a D developer but as a (somewhat new) D
user attempting to port a C++ library. Many features in D feel
unfinished and tons of feature requests sit on the bug tracker.
Attempting to port a library that requires a lot of deterministic
resource management to D has felt like I've been repeatedly
kicked in the teeth. There was an enhancement request from 2009
that got closed by Walter about addressing D's lack of resource
management utilities back in November (2014) saying just use
refcounted. That would be great if refcounted wasn't half
implemented and nearly featureless compared to C++'s shared_ptr.
There was a few bug reports for unique/refcounted (submitted by
you IIRC) to address their many issues that have pretty much just
sat there and which are far beyond my current D skillset to work
on. All while major D developers were working on the website and
major D utilities are well - broken.
Addendum, I wrote this on a phone during my commute so I
apologize about the lack of specifics and links - I hate mobile
typing. :)
Also, I am not blaming anyone for not working on what I deem
important in a FOSS project. I use almost only FOSS software and
understand that if I want feature X I should submit a PR.
But a lot of my disgruntlement using D has already been summed up
in proposed DIPs that rot on the wiki.
I'm probably going to continue using D because I like where it's
headed but it would be very difficult for me to recommend it to
any colleagues.
Again I apologize for the briefness, I'll try to reply to this
later with better details.
