Andrei Alexandrescu:

> * C++ compatibility
> * Everything GC-related
>
> Probably a distant third is improving build tooling. But those two are more important that everything else by an order of magnitude.

In parallel there are other things like ddmd, checked ints in core library, perhaps to finish shared libs, to test the patch from Kenji that fixes the module system, and more.

Bye,
bearophile

On 9/23/14, 9:40 AM, Paolo Invernizzi wrote:
> I'm starting to think that there will be a lot of buzz and fuss about D
> as soon as good bindings to popular C++ libs will appear in the wild...

Yah, and core.stdcpp will be quite the surprise. -- Andrei

On Tuesday, 23 September 2014 at 16:50:26 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 9/23/14, 9:40 AM, Paolo Invernizzi wrote:
>> I'm starting to think that there will be a lot of buzz and fuss about D
>> as soon as good bindings to popular C++ libs will appear in the wild...
>
> Yah, and core.stdcpp will be quite the surprise. -- Andrei

Really?? Wow. Awesome!

Atila

On Tuesday, 23 September 2014 at 14:29:06 UTC, Sean Kelly wrote:
> […] and a lack of attention paid to tightening up what we've already got and deprecating old stuff that no one wants any more.

This. The hypocritical fear of making breaking changes (the fact that not all of them are bad has been brought up over and over again by some of the corporate users) is crippling us, making D a much more cluttered language than necessary.

Seriously, once somebody comes up with an automatic fixup tool, there is hardly any generic argument left against language changes. Sure, there will always be some cases where manual intervention is still required, such as with string mixins. But unless we have lost hope that the D community is still to grow significantly, I don't see why the burden of proof should automatically lie on the side of those in favor of cleaning up cruft and semantical quirks.

Most D code is still to be written.

David

On Tue, 23 Sep 2014 14:29:05 +0000
Sean Kelly via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:

> function attributes.  I'm sure someone likes them, but I'm drowning in pure system const immutable @nogc @illegitemate @wtf hell.
and 'const' is such overpowered that it's barely usable on methods and struct/class fields.

On Tue, 23 Sep 2014 18:32:39 +0000
David Nadlinger via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:

> Seriously, once somebody comes up with an automatic fixup tool,
i bet nobody will. for many various reasons.

On 9/23/14, 11:32 AM, David Nadlinger wrote:
> On Tuesday, 23 September 2014 at 14:29:06 UTC, Sean Kelly wrote:
>> […] and a lack of attention paid to tightening up what we've already
>> got and deprecating old stuff that no one wants any more.
>
> This. The hypocritical fear of making breaking changes (the fact that
> not all of them are bad has been brought up over and over again by some
> of the corporate users) is crippling us, making D a much more cluttered
> language than necessary.
>
> Seriously, once somebody comes up with an automatic fixup tool, there is
> hardly any generic argument left against language changes. Sure, there
> will always be some cases where manual intervention is still required,
> such as with string mixins. But unless we have lost hope that the D
> community is still to grow significantly, I don't see why the burden of
> proof should automatically lie on the side of those in favor of cleaning
> up cruft and semantical quirks.
>
> Most D code is still to be written.

Well put. Again, the two things we need to work on are C++ compatibility and the GC. -- Andrei

On Tuesday, 23 September 2014 at 18:38:08 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>
> Well put. Again, the two things we need to work on are C++ compatibility and the GC. -- Andrei

Has much thought gone into how we'll address C++ const?

On 9/23/14, 12:01 PM, Sean Kelly wrote:
> On Tuesday, 23 September 2014 at 18:38:08 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>
>> Well put. Again, the two things we need to work on are C++
>> compatibility and the GC. -- Andrei
>
> Has much thought gone into how we'll address C++ const?

Some. A lot more needs to. -- Andrei

On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 07:01:05PM +0000, Sean Kelly via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Tuesday, 23 September 2014 at 18:38:08 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> >
> >Well put. Again, the two things we need to work on are C++ compatibility and the GC. -- Andrei
> 
> Has much thought gone into how we'll address C++ const?

Is that even addressable?? D const is fundamentally different from C++ const. Short of introducing logical const into D, I don't see how we could bridge the gap.


T

-- 
It is the quality rather than the quantity that matters. -- Lucius Annaeus Seneca