On Thursday, 14 July 2016 at 18:36:26 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
On Thursday, 14 July 2016 at 18:23:54 UTC, Chris wrote:
On Thursday, 14 July 2016 at 18:00:36 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
You were going ad hominem for no good reason. Here is a pretty
good rule: if you don't think you will get something out of an
discussion, don't engage in it. I personally find that I learn
a lot from discussions on language design, even when other
people are completely wrong. You have your own view of what is
needed, I have a completely different view. You cannot impose
your view of what is need on me, it won't work without a good
argument to back it up.
I certainly don't impose my view on others. The only reason I was
going ad hominem was to get you on board in a more substantial
manner than engaging in random discussions on the forum.
My view is that the position that some are arguing holds: the
core language has to be stripped down of special casing in
order to make major progress.
Aka: one step back, two steps forwards.
D is open source. Would it be possible to provide a stripped down
version that satisfies you as a proof of concept? The problem is
that abstract reasoning doesn't convince in IT. If you provide
something concrete people can work with, then they might pick up
on it.
If it makes you happy: I am from time to time looking at
various ways to modify floating point behaviour, but it won't
really matter until complexity is cut back. Because it could
easily become another complexity layer on top of what is
already there. The best way to improve on D is not to add more
complexity, but to cut back to a cleaner core language.
That's good to hear. Maybe you should go ahead anyway and see if
and how it could be integrated. Maybe it won't add another layer
of complexity. Unless you share it, nobody can chip in their 2
cents which might lead to a good solution.
I think you are taking a way too convenient position, somehow
pretending that there are no major hurdles to overcome in terms
of mindshare. My view is that mindshare is the most dominating
problem, e.g. changing viewpoints through arguments is really
the only option at the moment.
You mean you won't give up until everybody has the same opinion
as you :) Well, that's not how things work. Maybe a more
diplomatic approach would be better.
What other options are there?
Create facts. Provide a stripped down version of D and show that
it's better. You don't need to do it all by yourself. Ask like
minded people to help you. I'd be interested in the result.
You've praised stripped down D so much that I'm curious. I'm not
ideological about things.
