On Thursday, 14 July 2016 at 19:17:06 UTC, Chris wrote:
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.
That won't change anything. It's not a man-hour problem.
D is open source. Would it be possible to provide a stripped
down version that satisfies you as a proof of concept?
I have no idea. I'm only familiar with the C++ code of DMD, and
it was somewhat convoluted. When DMD transitioned to D it was
stated that the codebase would be refactored heavily. It would
make no sense to do anything until those who are intimate with
the codebase are done with refactoring.
Yet, it probably would not change anything, would it? Why would
anyone start on something like that without official backing?
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.
It would, you would most likely need to add sub-typing
constraints.
You mean you won't give up until everybody has the same opinion
as you
That's not what I meant, and not what I said. I am looking for
arguments, not opinions.
If you have a good argument, good, then I learn something. If
not, maybe you learn something, if you are willing.
That simple.
Maybe a more diplomatic approach would be better.
That's just words, I'm sorry, but when a position is taken that
is not sustainable then it doesn't really improve anything to say
«oh, you are a little bit right, except maybe not». The point is,
if people are reasonably intelligent, they do pick up the
argument even if they don't admit to it in the heat of the
moment. So it is better to try to present a clean position.
Muddying the water pretending that people are having a reasonable
position doesn't really move anything, it just confirms the
position they are holding. The point is not to win, or to be
right, but to bring proper arguments forth, only when people do
so will there be some hope of gaining insights.
Excuses such as «system programming is complex therefore D must
be this complex» is not a position that should be accepted.
You have to get rid of this position if you want to get anywhere.
Create facts. Provide a stripped down version of D and show
that it's better.
Completely unreasonable position. That would be more work than
writing my own compiler since I don't have an intimate
understanding of the current DMD codebase. If I had time to
implement my own D compiler then I would just design my own
language too... What you are expecting is out of proportions.
There is also no point in turning a sketch into a DIP that I know
will be shot down because it will require sub-typing. With the
current situation it would be quite reasonable to shoot it down
for adding complexity. And I am also not willing to propose
something that won't give the language a competitive edge...
because that won't be a real improvement to status quo.
There are basically two options:
1. The people who said they were welcoming breaking changes need
to push for a semantic cleanup of the core language so that D can
continue to evolve.
2. Someone like Timon who appears to be trying to create a more
formal model for D (if I haven't got it completely wrong) will
have to find a clean core language underneath the current
semantics that can express the current semantics (or most of it)
and also be extended in desirable directions.
The only thing I can do is support (1).
