On Friday, 12 September 2025 at 23:58:57 UTC, Brother Bill wrote:
> On Friday, 12 September 2025 at 21:46:51 UTC, monkyyy wrote:
>> On Friday, 12 September 2025 at 20:10:25 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
>>> Phobos code was legendary for being a standard library that didn't make your head hurt when you read it. (If you've ever tried reading the source code for Glibc, or the standard library for almost any other language, really, you'll know what I mean.)  It was exemplary of how D code ought to be written.  It probably still is today to some extent, though sadly over the years it has fallen into the mud and come out hairy on multiple occasions, so it ain't as pretty as it used to be anymore.)
>>
>>> It probably still is today to some extent
>>
>> *loud silence*
>>
>> Its probably time to raise some standards
>
> Is it time to consider D 3.x.x, that takes the best of D, discards the mistakes, the mud and the hair, so most well written D 2.x.x programs still work?

Your welcome in to come to opend

>
> Should it learn lessons from Rust

God no

> Should D follow Gleam, an Erlang variant in having functional programming with pattern matching, deconstruction, etc?

Templates are fundamentally compile time, memoized, pattern matching

Full pattern matching no, I want partial `value` pattern matching tho

> And take from Zig multiple ways to allocate memory?

That would be one of the allocation extremist factions I mentioned and honestly the one that has walters ear most.