On 10/05/12 00:45, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Wed, 09 May 2012 18:32:26 -0400, Joseph Rushton Wakeling
<[email protected]> wrote:
But there are people who _aren't_ willing to make that compromise, and others
who will be put off before they even realize that compromise is possible.
There are those who will refuse to use D because it's not copyleft. Good luck
getting those people on board ;)
Do you mean there are those who will refuse to use D if it _is_ copyleft?
I've never heard of anybody refusing to use a piece of software because it had
e.g. a permissive licence. Refuse to contribute, possibly, but that's a much
more extreme and fringe position than the "must be open source!" one.
I think we have a pretty awesome and talented team working on D, and in the end,
performance is what matters, not who your friends are.
Re the team, we absolutely agree. :-)
Re friends: I always think it's a good idea to have lots, and from as diverse a
range of backgrounds as possible. I just don't see what _good_ it does to have
the backend non-OS, given the possible harms it can do.
The short-term benefit is that the status quo allows the team to keep improving
the language with minimal hassle (not having to learn a new backend model or
negotiate with Symantec over licensing), but that's only a benefit up until the
point where D2 stabilizes. Beyond that, any advantage vanishes.
