On Wednesday, 24 September 2014 at 05:44:15 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Sep 2014 21:59:53 -0700
> Brad Roberts via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
>
>> I understand quite thoroughly why c++ support is a big win
> i believe it's not.
>
> so-called "enterprise" will not choose D for many reasons, and "c++
> interop" is on the bottom of the list.
>
> seasoned c++ developer will not migrate to D for many reasons (or he
> already did that, but then he is not c++ developer anymore), and "c++
> interop" is not on the top of the list, not even near the top.
>
> all that gory efforts aimed to "c++ interop" will bring three and a
> half more users. there will be NO massive migration due to "better c++
> interop". yet this feature is on the top of the list now. i'm sad.
>
> seems that i (we?) have no choice except to wait until people will get
> enough of c++ games and will became focused on D again. porting and
> merging CDGC is much better target which help people already using D,
> but... but imaginary "future adopters" seems to be the highest
> priority. too bad that they will never arrive.

Why does anyone have to *wait* for anything?  I'm not seeing the blocking issues regarding attempts to fix the language.  People are making PRs, people are discussing and testing ideas, and there appear to be enough people to tackle several problems at once (typedefs, C++ interop, GC/RC issues, weirdness with ref and auto, import symbol shadowing, etc.)  Maybe things aren't moving as swiftly as we would like in the areas which are most impactful *to us* but that is the nature of free software.  Has it ever been any other way than that the things which get the most attention are the things which the individual contributors are the most passionate about (whether their passion is justified or not?)

On 23/09/14 18:19, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

> It's been this for a good while, and it will probably be until done. --
> Andrei

So why isn't there a publicly available road map? Note, this one [1] doesn't mention C++ nor the GC.

[1] http://wiki.dlang.org/Agenda

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On 23/09/14 20:32, David Nadlinger wrote:

> Seriously, once somebody comes up with an automatic fixup tool, there is
> hardly any generic argument left against language changes.

Brain has already said that such a tool is fairly easy to create in many cases. Also that he is willing do to so if it will be used. But so far neither Andrei or Walter have shown any signs of willing to break code that can be fixed with a tool like this. I can understand that Brian doesn't want to create such a tool if it's not going to be used.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On 9/23/2014 10:37 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 9/23/2014 10:10 PM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>> Yeah, I wish that at least *some* attention would be paid to refining
>> existing features so that problematic corner cases could be ironed out.
> So help out!

I note that you've had many contributions accepted, this is great:

https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aclosed+author%3Aquickfur

https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/pulls?q=is%3Apr+author%3Aquickfur

So please work on the refinements you wish for!

On 9/23/14, 11:13 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 23/09/14 18:19, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>
>> It's been this for a good while, and it will probably be until done. --
>> Andrei
>
> So why isn't there a publicly available road map? Note, this one [1]
> doesn't mention C++ nor the GC.
>
> [1] http://wiki.dlang.org/Agenda

Could you please update it? C++ and GC. C++ and GC. Thanks. -- Andrei

On 9/23/14, 11:16 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 23/09/14 20:32, David Nadlinger wrote:
>
>> Seriously, once somebody comes up with an automatic fixup tool, there is
>> hardly any generic argument left against language changes.
>
> Brain has already said that such a tool is fairly easy to create in many
> cases. Also that he is willing do to so if it will be used. But so far
> neither Andrei or Walter have shown any signs of willing to break code
> that can be fixed with a tool like this. I can understand that Brian
> doesn't want to create such a tool if it's not going to be used.

Some breakage will going to happen even though we're increasingly conservative. So yes, having a tool is nice.

Andrei

On 24/09/14 07:37, Walter Bright wrote:

> So help out!

You always say we should help out instead of complaining. But where are all the users that want C++ support. Let them implement it instead and lets us focus on actual D users we have now.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On 24/09/14 06:59, Brad Roberts via Digitalmars-d wrote:

> I agree with Sean quite a bit here.
>
> Let's turn the camera around and look at it from a different angle.  I'm
> hard pressed to find a new feature from the last few years that's
> actually thoroughly complete.  And by complete I mean that druntime and
> phobos use it everywhere it should be used.
>
> Shared libraries?  nope.
> Any of the new attributes?  nope.
> 64 bit support?  nope.
> const?
> shared?
> cleaning up object?
>
> .. nope.
>
> And that's not even getting into the big gaps that exist.

I completely agree. Lets focus on the D users we actually have, not some imaginary C++ users that will come running as soon as there is enough C++ support.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On 9/23/14, 11:20 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 24/09/14 07:37, Walter Bright wrote:
>
>> So help out!
>
> You always say we should help out instead of complaining. But where are
> all the users that want C++ support. Let them implement it instead and
> lets us focus on actual D users we have now.

This thinking is provincial and damaging. We need to focus on both retaining our current users as well as in getting to the next level of magnitude. And for that we need C++ compatibility and improving everything about the GC story. -- Andrei

On 9/23/14, 11:22 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 24/09/14 06:59, Brad Roberts via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>
>> I agree with Sean quite a bit here.
>>
>> Let's turn the camera around and look at it from a different angle.  I'm
>> hard pressed to find a new feature from the last few years that's
>> actually thoroughly complete.  And by complete I mean that druntime and
>> phobos use it everywhere it should be used.
>>
>> Shared libraries?  nope.
>> Any of the new attributes?  nope.
>> 64 bit support?  nope.
>> const?
>> shared?
>> cleaning up object?
>>
>> .. nope.
>>
>> And that's not even getting into the big gaps that exist.
>
> I completely agree. Lets focus on the D users we actually have, not some
> imaginary C++ users that will come running as soon as there is enough
> C++ support.

Those are very real. I know this for a fact. -- Andrei