| |
| Posted by Chris in reply to zjh | PermalinkReply |
|
Chris
| On Wednesday, 29 June 2022 at 02:18:20 UTC, zjh wrote:
> If you want to say what specific problems D has, you can discuss them. If you say that D has problems, D has problems. This is not good.
We all know that D has numerous problems that render it unusable (not minor quirks one can live with), and I won't reiterate them here, you just need to browse around in the forum a little bit and you'll see that the same issues keep coming up year after year, and even the leadership has realized that "something is rotten in the state of D" [1], Andrei only phrased it differently: "a variety of decisions that did not withstand the test of time". What a nice way of putting it. If you only mentioned autodecode a few years ago, you'd be in for a flamewar. Now it's the big revelation that it was a bad idea. If Andrei describes how C++ finally came out of the "dark ages" and suggests that this is the way forward for D, what else is this but the acknowledgement that D is now in the same position as C++ was years ago? So don't ask me about "specific problems", if the leadership itself compares D to C++ during its winter. It is also an acknowledgement that the critics were right about many of D's issues.
In my view, D is a weird mix of an 0.x language and C++. It has loads of baggage and dead weight, just like C++, but breaking changes and new features are introduced as if it was still below 1.0. So you get the worst of both: the clutter an old language accumulates in the attic over the years and the instability and unpredictability of a new language.
Why would I want to use it for any serious stuff?
[1] e.g.
|