Emil Madsen wrote:
And yea, bearophile brings up a lot of nice features, and Walter would
never have a chance to implement all of them himself, which might be
good, if everything bearophile suggests got into the language, we would
have this major language noone would ever be able to learn, nor use.
However, if we succeed in implementing the best ideas I do think we'll
end up with a superb output, however I do think we need to discuss a lot
of issues and features, and thats why I love bearophiles postings,
simply because it gives the community a lot to discuss.
Just my opinion. - But I do think discussing a lot of features, even the
ones not really related, will help out the language in the end.
I think bearophile does a valuable service to us by bringing up discussion
topics.
My gripe is when he lists things that he wishes D did when D already does them
and has for years. Case in point: D imports. It's irksome when he often writes
from the perspective of assuming that D does it wrong while other languages are
assumed to do it right. Case in point: design by contract, and his assumption
that dmd was a primitive compiler that did not do data flow analysis while
praising llvm's.
My concern about that is that with the volume of his posts, I will miss some of
them, and people inexperienced with D will presume those mistakes and
misunderstandings are correct.
I have no issue at all with bringing up factual shortcomings of D, even when I
disagree about whether they are actual shortcomings or not. For example, it is a
fact that D does not check for integer arithmetic overflow. Whether that's a
problem or not is a fine topic for discussion.
