On 27.12.2017 21:48, Walter Bright wrote:
> 
> Another is it is known that people have cognitive problems with negation. It often just does not register in the mind.

_Phobos_ does not take this point into account though.

I.e., this seems like an excellent time to bring this up again:
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4535

(The action starts at Comment 7.)

On 27.12.2017 16:37, rjframe wrote:
> If the programmer opts-in to those checks... it's a +1 for pragmatism but
> does make marketing the language a bit weird -- one-liners spawn
> objections to the integrity of the claim (such as a portion of this
> thread; if there are objections within the community, how much more will
> we find objections outside it!).

Frankly, I can see no need to appeal to people who think that having a culture where people feel free to question claims they consider dubious somehow reflects badly on the community or the language (hint: it's the opposite).

On 12/27/2017 3:33 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
> _Phobos_ does not take this point into account though.
> 
> I.e., this seems like an excellent time to bring this up again:
> https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4535


Phobos has undergone several waves of grand renaming. At some point this has to stop and we need stability.

On Tuesday, 19 December 2017 at 09:54:05 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> "C, Python, Go, and the Generalized Greenspun Law"
>
> http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=7804

"Maybe D is right about GC after all"

or maybe not...

On Wednesday, 27 December 2017 at 22:36:08 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 12/27/2017 8:57 AM, Laeeth Isharc wrote:
>> It's much better to have a monopoly of some niche or set of niches and to use energy from success to expand out from there, than to have a small market share of an enormous market.
>
> Back in the 80's, Zortech made a killing because we had the only C++ compiler that would generate 16 bit Windows code.
>
> I found this out by asking the sales guys what feature of ZTC++ was closing the deal - X, Y, Z, all the features I held dear. They'd say nope. Customers wanted to use C++ for Win16, ZTC++ supported that, sold!
>
> I learned a lot from that.

That a product which fulfils a need in a total void sells? No disrespect, but aint it a bit tautological ? Can you find a similar void today which is to be filled by D ? Better yet can you create one ?

On 28.12.2017 01:16, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 12/27/2017 3:33 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
>> _Phobos_ does not take this point into account though.
>>
>> I.e., this seems like an excellent time to bring this up again:
>> https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4535
> 
> 
> Phobos has undergone several waves of grand renaming. At some point this has to stop and we need stability.

This is both true and unrelated.

On Wednesday, 27 December 2017 at 20:24:04 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>
> This illustrates my point if it was unclear:
>
> C++:
>     int foo(int* p) { return p[1]; }
>     int bar(int i) { return foo(&i); }
>
>     clang++ -c test.cpp -Wall
>
>
> D:
>     @safe:
>     int foo(int* p) { return p[1]; }
>     int bar(int i) {return foo(&i); }
>
>     dmd -c test.d
>     test.d(3): Error: safe function 'test.foo' cannot index pointer 'p'
>     test.d(4): Error: cannot take address of parameter i in @safe function bar

Well,I can press the accelerator on my car to the floor, and crash the car.

But is that a problem with the car, or the way I used it (referring to the C++ portion of your example)? Would be better, and fairer, to write that portion in modern C++, and then make the comparison with D.

And sure, we can (and do) make cars that modify the acceleraton potential, but then you can't do burnouts ;-(

So safety certainly does have real value..but it always wants to take something away. (and unfortunately, we're becoming a very risk averse society, with more and more freedoms being taken away in the name of 'safety' - but I divert..)

Of course, the nice thing about D, is that we can (for the most part) switch it from one to the other...so I like that a lot.

But when I really want to put the pedal to the metal, I still look to C.

(although, one day the government will try to make C illegal too I guess).

On Thursday, 28 December 2017 at 00:16:39 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>
> Phobos has undergone several waves of grand renaming. At some point this has to stop and we need stability.

There is nothing better for a progamming language than stability.

There is nothing worse for a progamming language than stability.

On Thursday, 28 December 2017 at 00:36:32 UTC, Dan partelly wrote:
> Can you find a similar void today which is to be filled by D ?
> Better yet can you create one ?

No need to create one. It already exists.

The need for highly flexible, portable, powerful, fast, compiled language, that is easy to understand and pleasant to work with.

On Thursday, 28 December 2017 at 02:16:03 UTC, codephantom wrote:

>
> No need to create one. It already exists.
>
> The need for highly flexible, portable, powerful, fast, compiled language, that is easy to understand and pleasant to work with.

Id wish things would be so simple. Unfortunately, no, there is no void to be filled by a monopoly here.   It's a place full of competition, and to gain a spot (not bene, a spot, the monopoly doesnt exist) you have to demonstrate that you are a compelling enough improvement.
And this is battle you can't won on technical grounds alone.

 Recall the need for an OS which is consistent, elegant , better than Unix ? And recall how the Plan 9 masterpiece failed in trying to fill that space ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worse_is_better [1]