Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Oh, I agree that he's wrong, and I agree that D2 is making serious progress, but
he's got enough of his facts right that I don't think that he can be convinced
by correcting what he's saying. I see value in correcting people if they
misunderstand the situation, but trying to convince someone whose opinion differs
when they have their facts more or less straight is likely to just result in
heated arguments.
The fact that D2 is not 100% stable is, of course, not something that we want,
but I do agree that it's completely understandable why D is the way it is at the
moment and that it's not unreasonable for it to be that way. D is improving and
it will eventually reach the same level of stability that modern C++ compilers
enjoy. However, it's also pretty much a given that many people won't want to use
D until it has a level of stability comparable with the compilers that they use
for more mature languages. But there's nothing that we can do about that except
continue to improve D until it reachs that point. And the more stable it
becomes, the easier it will become to get people to try it and stick with it.
I agree there are plenty of reasons to not use D, but also a lot more reasons to
use it.
