On Saturday, 17 November 2018 at 07:05:58 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
>
> When an unusually large number of new accounts suddenly pop up, all pretty much echoing the same opinions with the same tone and writing style, it's usually an indication that sockpuppeteering is going on. *shrug*  That's just what some people do with the convenient anonymity of the internet.  It's a practice as old as Usenet, and I've learned to just ignore it.
>

btw. do you know what 'meatpuppetry' is ?

On Saturday, 17 November 2018 at 01:00:39 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>> > LOL. Walter's comment at dconf this year that he wished D had const as the default definitely makes me that much more leery of D3 ever arriving, since I increasingly avoid const in D.
>>
>> So you're essentially going back to D1? ;-)
>
> In terms of const? You read my article on it, so you should know where I stand on it. I don't think that either C++ or D got it right, but I also don't know what const would look like if it were done right.

From the viewpoint of an ignorant outsider (i.e. me), Scala's
`var` (mutable)/`val` (immutable) strikes me as the closer to it.

On Friday, 16 November 2018 at 13:38:17 UTC, bauss wrote:
> On Friday, 16 November 2018 at 13:10:19 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
>> I've never had C++ projects break due to a compiler update, nor have I ever filed a clang or gcc bug.
>
> But that's because C++ is way older than D and has had a lot more work done to it.

Yes. That doesn't change the current state of affairs.

> C++ hasn't always been elegant

I don't think C++ has ever been elegant, except for the introduction of the STL.

> and I'll bet you Walter can come up with a lot of issues with C++ from back when he worked on C++ compilers.

I don't need to, I remember them. There's a reason Qt looks the way it does: at the time compilers couldn't be relied to compile templates properly. I learned the STL by not learning the actual *standard* template library. There were a lot of similar incompatible implementations.

> Clang and GCC do have a lot of bugs too though, but they're usually much more "precise" and not so much "general" as most bugs in D, but eventually D will reach the same level.

I know. I didn't suggest they were bug free, just that I've never personally filed a bug for either of those compilers. I have 19 to my name on dmd.

> I have never had any breakage because of a D compiler update in my own projects for the past 2+ years, but I have with 3rd party libraries though, so I'm not entirely free of that either.

I've literally lost count.

> As long as D is as open as it is, then I think it'll continue to have breakage with each bigger release.

I hope not!

> The good thing though is that it's usually not necessary to update your compiler version and you can generally wait a few versions until you update and that way you can skip most breakage.

Again, something I've never had to do with clang or gcc.

On Saturday, 17 November 2018 at 01:00:39 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Friday, November 16, 2018 3:41:10 PM MST H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 07:49:32PM -0700, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d wrote: [...]
>>
>> > [...]
>>
>> Actually, immutable by default would encourage better coding style, as well as potentially provide a small performance benefit by allowing the optimizer to take advantage of more things that don't need to be mutable (can elide certain loads even in the face of aliasing, can infer more loop invariants, etc.).
>
> immutable by default would encourage a functional programming style everywhere. I dispute that that's necessarily better. There are certainly times that that's better, but it's often hell. What we have now allows us to program functionally when we want to without forcing it, whereas having immutable by default would lean heavily towards forcing it.

Not forcing but encouraging.

> It also would not play well with D being a systems language

I can't see how - in Rust everything is immutable by default and it's fine.

> or with D interacting with C or C++.

I also can't see how that'd be the case.

> Honestly, having D3 be const or immutable by default is the sort of choice that would make me seriously consider quitting D.

For me, the defaults should be @safe pure for functions and const for variables.

On 11/15/18 9:20 AM, Joakim wrote:
> Speaking of which, Weka might already be it: I'm editing together an interview with Liran for the D blog, should be up soon.

Can't wait!

On Wednesday, 14 November 2018 at 15:07:46 UTC, lagfra wrote:
> TL;DR: what will D offer with respect to C++ when almost all key features of D are present in C++20(+)?

You don't have to deal with the header files bloat. <- still one of the biggest advantages imho

On Saturday, 17 November 2018 at 01:00:39 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> If Walter and Andrei were to say tomorrow that they wanted to create D3, they'd get bombarded with all kinds of stray ideas about how the language should be changed.

Well, I'd kindly suggest to *not* create yet another programming language then.

On Wednesday, 14 November 2018 at 15:07:46 UTC, lagfra wrote:
>
> TL;DR: what will D offer with respect to C++ when almost all key features of D are present in C++20(+)?

If you list C++, D and Rust language features you would find that they are almost the same. That said its immediately clear that a list of features are not enough to describe a language. Your experience with these languages will be different because they are different languages.

C++ biggest problem at this time is long compile times. It can add all D`s compile time features and still people would not use those features to the same extent as in D just because those features would increase compile times to unacceptable levels. At this time big projects like compilers and game engines take half an hour to compile on modern machines. Now imagine what their compile times would happen if those project would use meta programming to the same level as WekaIO. And no modules wont change this significantly.

But as other said it already C++ havent -stolen- implemented those features correctly and by the time you could use them D would have improved even more.

On Wednesday, 14 November 2018 at 15:07:46 UTC, lagfra wrote:
> https://www.reddit.com/r/cpp/comments/9vwvbz/2018_san_diego_iso_c_committee_trip_report_ranges/

D has:
1. A package manager (dub)
2. (optional) Garbage Collection
3. A standard library that is actually useful
4. Far nicer syntax

I think the crown jewel of D is interfaces and garbage collection. I was surprised to see that many people here don't do OOP and want to not use garbage collection.