On Tuesday, 11 February 2014 at 17:55:36 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> better C++. It kinda sticks. Because people really want that.
>
> I don't think so, at all. Anyone working on D must drop the moniker "D is a better C++" like a bad habit, no two ways about that. Most of it does it sets C++ as the benchmark. People who already like C++ would be like "you wish" and people who hate C++ would be like "better crap is not what I need anyway".

(I don't really agree, because whenever I use C++ I feel like implementing my own language or recently: take another look at D.)

But for people looking for a system level programming language, C++ is a baseline. So you will invariably be measured against it.

If you think in terms of "lost opportunities", I believe D looses out by not providing a compiler switch that turns off the GC and issues errors whenever GC-dependent constructs are being used. Not elegant, but simple and makes it easy to start doing real time programming because you then have achieved near parity with C++ baseline requirements.

If you have limited resources you need to switch to thinking about baselines, key requirements and where you loose your audience.

D looses opportunities for growth by not having a stable release that is perceived as current.  You could (in theory) make a base line release, by focusing on the compiler and the runtime, pushing features that are not essential for forward compatibility into the next release and only release the aspect of phobos you are happy with.

A known current, stable and supported release makes it possible to plan for others wanting to use D for production and would open up for branches for their own projects, like real-time features.

I believe that by delaying a stable release in order to make it feature complete, you loose out, because you move out of the planning window (let's say 6-12 months) for those assessing possible technologies.

> We want to make D a great language all around, with system-level access and also convenience features.

If you go too hard in the Application Language direction the System Level will be less visible. And there is more of a future for a system level compiled language with limited tool support.

> It's there in <h2> at the top of our homepage: "Modern convenience. Modeling power. Native efficiency."

Slogans doesn't tell me much, I think we talk past each other here.

> By the way, this whole "plop a vision page" thing doesn't seem to be quite popular:

I think Rust's homepage and documentation is clear.

By "vision" I mean that future which the tool will bring with it as it appears to the reader. That which brings excitement and engagement: "I want that future".

Basically the long term goals. Those that you might not achieve in generation 1, 2, 3… but which you are approaching.

What I found exciting about W.B.'s original D1 was those aspects where D also would bring along semantics that make it possible to optimize better than C/C++, such as whole program optimization. It does not have to be in this generation of compilers to be communicated as language goals.

Immutability, pure, templates etc are useful, but not exciting. And not unique for D.

Anyway, I wish you the best of luck. I look forward to your next stable release and hope to be able to adapt the stable runtime to real time uses and make it available as patches for those interested. A long running development branch is outside my time window (e.g. I might have moved on to other things by the time it can be expected to reach maturity).

Cheers,
Ola.

On 2/11/14, Joseph Cassman <jc7919@outlook.com> wrote:
> Sorry to change the subject but one thing that keeps discouraging me from trying to contribute code changes is the large number of unmerged pull requests in GitHub.

For what it's worth new Phobos pull requests get a review and are merged pretty quickly lately. The number of open pull requests is drastically falling as of late. Take a look at the blue line:

http://i.imgur.com/ELfvwEO.png

Generated from:

http://d.puremagic.com/test-results/chart.ghtml?projectid=1

-----

Don't hesitate to contribute by submitting a pull request, there will be someone around that can review your work, and guide you in the process if you have any trouble along the way. Thanks!

On Sunday, 16 February 2014 at 20:48:50 UTC, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
> On 2/11/14, Joseph Cassman <jc7919@outlook.com> wrote:
>> Sorry to change the subject but one thing that keeps discouraging
>> me from trying to contribute code changes is the large number of
>> unmerged pull requests in GitHub.
>
> For what it's worth new Phobos pull requests get a review and are
> merged pretty quickly lately. The number of open pull requests is
> drastically falling as of late. Take a look at the blue line:
>
> http://i.imgur.com/ELfvwEO.png
>
> Generated from:
>
> http://d.puremagic.com/test-results/chart.ghtml?projectid=1
>
> -----
>
> Don't hesitate to contribute by submitting a pull request, there will
> be someone around that can review your work, and guide you in the
> process if you have any trouble along the way. Thanks!

Appreciate the graphic. Looks encouraging.
Joseph