On Tuesday, 22 September 2015 at 14:46:30 UTC, Ola Fosheim
Grøstad wrote:
On Tuesday, 22 September 2015 at 13:38:33 UTC, Chris wrote:
too long. But as I said before, it's only from D that users
expect perfection, other languages are accepted as they are,
warts and all.
I don't think that is true.
I do, because every other (new) language is embraced as _the_ way
to go, while in the D community even minor issues are blown out
of proportion.
A problem for D today is that D1 was originally deliberately
constrained, which made perfect sense when the language was
small (just like it makes sense for Go today). But D2 is
deliberately open, yet D2 has added features without redefining
the core language from D1 first. It is possible to fix it, by
defining a minimal D language and move everything else to
libraries, but not without breaking backwards compatibility.
Then we need a transition strategy. I wouldn't mind refactoring
my code in order to adapt it to changes that are for the better
in the long run. However, I wouldn't want it to happen in a
sudden way that would render all my code useless. Nobody would
accept this.
