How a community is able to diagnose its issues and shortcomings, work on them and plan for the future!
There is lot to learn from this post, i think it can be helpful and useful
Thread overview | |||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
January 25, 2023 [OT] Scala Resurrection | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
How a community is able to diagnose its issues and shortcomings, work on them and plan for the future! There is lot to learn from this post, i think it can be helpful and useful |
January 25, 2023 Re: [OT] Scala Resurrection | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to ryuukk_ | On Wednesday, 25 January 2023 at 14:57:01 UTC, ryuukk_ wrote: >How a community is able to diagnose its issues and shortcomings, work on them and plan for the future! There is lot to learn from this post, i think it can be helpful and useful Oh, I think this community has done a more than sufficient job of documenting the shortcomings, and probably even invented a few that aren't there. It always comes back to the same problem - a lack of labor. |
January 25, 2023 Re: [OT] Scala Resurrection | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to bachmeier | On Wednesday, 25 January 2023 at 19:35:10 UTC, bachmeier wrote: >It always comes back to the same problem - a lack of labor. Lack of labor is a second-order symptom. First-order symptom is a lack of motivation. The cause is this: |
January 25, 2023 Re: [OT] Scala Resurrection | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to RTM | On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 08:31:13PM +0000, RTM via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On Wednesday, 25 January 2023 at 19:35:10 UTC, bachmeier wrote: > > > It always comes back to the same problem - a lack of labor. > > Lack of labor is a second-order symptom. First-order symptom is a lack > of motivation. The cause is this: > D2 can’t be fully fixed because of backwards compatibility (important > clients, big codebase). > D3 can’t be created because of D/D2/Tango/Phobos PTSD. > Stalemate. IMO, Tango/Phobos PTSD is exaggerated. The Tango/Phobos incident hasn't mattered for at least a decade, and it actually sounds kinda funny when people insist on bringing it back up from the dead. I would totally support D3. As long as there's some kind of backward compatibility mechanism (something akin to Rust editions) old code would continue to work. And some code is worth breaking, if the breakage would improve the quality of the code. T -- A mathematician learns more and more about less and less, until he knows everything about nothing; whereas a philospher learns less and less about more and more, until he knows nothing about everything. |
January 25, 2023 Re: [OT] Scala Resurrection | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to RTM | On Wednesday, 25 January 2023 at 20:31:13 UTC, RTM wrote: >On Wednesday, 25 January 2023 at 19:35:10 UTC, bachmeier wrote: >It always comes back to the same problem - a lack of labor. Lack of labor is a second-order symptom. First-order symptom is a lack of motivation. The cause is this: There is a ton of work that can be done. Everyone instantly jumps to language changes, which frankly are irrelevant in terms of D seeing wider adoption. The language is already good enough. Maybe not for every use case, but definitely good enough to see much heavier usage. None of the things you've listed explains problems with the tooling, lack of blogging and YouTubing about D, lack of certain libraries, etc. |
January 26, 2023 Re: [OT] Scala Resurrection | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to bachmeier | On Wednesday, 25 January 2023 at 23:45:58 UTC, bachmeier wrote: >There is a ton of work that can be done. Everyone instantly jumps to language changes, which frankly are irrelevant in terms of D seeing wider adoption. The language is already good enough. Maybe not for every use case, but definitely good enough to see much heavier usage. There are some language features that should not be neglected, the ones that are considered obvious to have in most modern languages, to name just one: Tagged Union with Pattern matching Having to still advocate for it in and still seeing this much resistance in 2023 is kinda sad, to be honest |
January 26, 2023 Re: [OT] Scala Resurrection | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to ryuukk_ | On Thursday, 26 January 2023 at 03:09:47 UTC, ryuukk_ wrote: >On Wednesday, 25 January 2023 at 23:45:58 UTC, bachmeier wrote: >There is a ton of work that can be done. Everyone instantly jumps to language changes, which frankly are irrelevant in terms of D seeing wider adoption. The language is already good enough. Maybe not for every use case, but definitely good enough to see much heavier usage. There are some language features that should not be neglected, the ones that are considered obvious to have in most modern languages, to name just one: Tagged Union with Pattern matching Having to still advocate for it in and still seeing this much resistance in 2023 is kinda sad, to be honest I'm not sure what kind of resistance you are talking about, but it would be useful to have some reassurance that the existing language features (which are already "good enough" as stated by bachmeier) won't be broken. There are some useful language features that are missing. For example, I want to be able to return multiple values from a function and assign them to multiple variables, which is a feature that is implemented by pretty much every other programming language (even C++17 in the form of "structured binding"). But if somebody says that we can have it in D only in a way that breaks the existing software, then this won't make me happy and you will see some "resistance". Today D2 is useful for developing software. But it's like building a house on a sleeping volcano. Even if everything is relatively calm right now, nobody knows when it is going to erupt and cause massive damage to the existing ecosystem. Also here's a quote from the linked Scala post:
|
January 26, 2023 Re: [OT] Scala Resurrection | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Siarhei Siamashka | On Thursday, 26 January 2023 at 11:30:02 UTC, Siarhei Siamashka wrote: >Today D2 is useful for developing software. But it's like building a house on a sleeping volcano. Even if everything is relatively calm right now, nobody knows when it is going to erupt and cause massive damage to the existing ecosystem. Also here's a quote from the linked Scala post:
As an employee at a commercial interest, I honestly disagree. D has too much stuff. It needs to slim things down and commit to a cohesive vision. If that means breaking our code, we'll deal. I see it as less building a house on a volcano and more joining a colony set in a toxic waste dump. If the house is irradiated and the kitchen chairs are made out of asbestos, by golly we'll have to tear it down. So long as it improves the health of the whole, I'm all for it. (Of course, it's a question of cost-benefit.) |
January 26, 2023 Re: [OT] Scala Resurrection | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to ryuukk_ | On Wednesday, 25 January 2023 at 14:57:01 UTC, ryuukk_ wrote: >How a community is able to diagnose its issues and shortcomings, work on them and plan for the future! There is lot to learn from this post, i think it can be helpful and useful To me Scala is the perfect example of how you can run into self-induced mental overload caused by an overly complicated programming language that tries to do too many things till you in the end start to believe that a programming language is the essence of life. D has a much better feature balance than Scala. Besides, Scala 3 is a good example of how a new language version can wrack the whole language. |
January 26, 2023 Re: [OT] Scala Resurrection | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Siarhei Siamashka | On Thursday, 26 January 2023 at 11:30:02 UTC, Siarhei Siamashka wrote: >Today D2 is useful for developing software. But it's like building a house on a sleeping volcano. Even if everything is relatively calm right now, nobody knows when it is going to erupt and cause massive damage to the existing ecosystem. Also here's a quote from the linked Scala post:
That's what I would like D to focus on. Stabilizing itself, enhancing its features and fixing bugs. I have always thought that new features are too easily accepted into the language. We do not need more bureaucratic processes, but rather a measure that will segregate what is needed or fits the language and what does not, no matter how convenient that awesome feature might be. But I guess it has to do with the philosophy of D; although, what's the philosophy of D? Need to do some reading... I have never written any compiler code, so I maybe biased since I do not know the state of D in that realm... But, what I would like to see is a gradual progression and improvement of D: D2.99 => D3.00 No jumping from D2 to D3 and breaking existing code. We do have a deprecating cycle/procedure, don't we? Let's gradually improve. A few quotes:
Thank you for your hard work, D dev team! |