On Thu, 23 Aug 2018 07:27:56 +0000, JN wrote: > I think a large part is defining what kind of users D wants to attract.
I've begun wondering whether "pragmatism" is sometimes used as a code word for indecision. > Is it possible to make a language that both groups would be happy to > use? Perhaps, or perhaps the gap is too wide. Is adding features like > dip1000 and betterC spreading ourselves too thin? Perhaps. Perhaps there > are features that aren't really used, and should be reworked or cut from > the language instead I do think that D can do it. And I think D is the only language I've looked at that can do it. But I think it's going to take Walter and Andrei, in conversation with the core team, putting together a real list of priorities and setting a high-level direction. Look at what the end goal really is and what it will take to get there. The current high level document tends to read as a list of what's already being worked on, but piecemeal improvements probably aren't going to cut it -- this goes back to the leverage conversation Andrei started earlier. > (has anyone ever used contracts?). I do. It's a shame D doesn't take them seriously. As it is, I generally use them solely to express intent, which you don't get by placing asserts in the function body. I often read the function signature of functions I'm calling without reading the body, so separating the asserts from the body is helpful. And they're often useful on interfaces.