https://users.rust-lang.org/t/dlang-adds-a-borrowchecker-called-the-ob-system-for-ownership-borrowing/42872


-- 
Russel.
===========================================
Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200
41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077
London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk

On Wednesday, 20 May 2020 at 14:14:05 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:

> Programming languages evolve or die. During early stage evolution there is always experimentation. This seems fine – as long as the experiments do not go into a release prior to completion.

The best example of this is Java. It's evolved a lot over the years, in spite of being extremely heavily used and being an enterprise programming language. The Rust leadership would do well to keep in mind that evolution is not optional. Especially for a language that has a tiny fraction of the popularity of Java (in spite of the front page of Hacker News).

On Wednesday, 20 May 2020 at 14:14:05 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:

>> Who wants to use an "ongoing experiment" to write real world software? That's to invite disaster. And worse than an "experiment" that might have a sound scientific basis, D keeps adding stuff at whim because others have it too, like children. I wonder why D hasn't gained the traction its users think it should have. Hm. There's a lot more to programming and PLs than fancy ideas. A certain rigidity and straight-lacedness is often the result of a lot of (creative) thinking and experimentation that takes place before a PL reaches 1.0 - not afterwards.
>
> Programming languages evolve or die. During early stage evolution there is always experimentation. This seems fine – as long as the experiments do not go into a release prior to completion.

Evolve yes. And yes, Java was too conservative for too long until Kotlin came along. But there's a difference between a language evolving when there's a need to evolve (changes in hardware, networking, big data, new platforms or even changes in programming culture (you know, the whole lot), and the erratic addition of the latest fancy features, i.e. when the language becomes a playground for hackers and nerds, forever chaotic and immature.

@Mike Parker
Finally, dear Mike Parker, since you have deleted my original reply to Russel, may I ask you to delete any answer that quotes my answer, else your censorship looks a bit inconsistent. But consistency is apparently not held in highly regarded here anyway, given your statement from the 19 October 2019:

"I also don't want to be deleting negative posts just because they're negative. Then we get into the business of deleting replies that quote them, and maybe even losing some actual useful signal in all the noise."

Here's the full statement: https://forum.dlang.org/post/vqfhwstyyozrsxegquxe@forum.dlang.org

If it wasn't you, Mike, who took down my answer, please remind that person of your statement on Forum Moderation.

Anyway, as soon as people have to revert to censorship (it's not the first time here either) they have something to hide. Greatness speaks for itself.

On Wednesday, 20 May 2020 at 17:49:49 UTC, Chris wrote:
> "I also don't want to be deleting negative posts just because they're negative. Then we get into the business of deleting replies that quote them, and maybe even losing some actual useful signal in all the noise."
>
> Here's the full statement: https://forum.dlang.org/post/vqfhwstyyozrsxegquxe@forum.dlang.org
>
> If it wasn't you, Mike, who took down my answer, please remind that person of your statement on Forum Moderation.
>
> Anyway, as soon as people have to revert to censorship (it's not the first time here either) they have something to hide. Greatness speaks for itself.

I didn't catch the entirety of your reply, but I am able to read what Russel quoted. From those excerpts, I think the negativity wasn't the issue but your superfluously rude phrasing--something with which you seemingly have an issue. This is, of course, merely my opinion, and Mike can speak for himself.

20.05.2020 20:49, Chris пишет:
> On Wednesday, 20 May 2020 at 14:14:05 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
>  Evolve yes. And yes, Java was too conservative for too long until Kotlin came along. But there's a difference between a language evolving when there's a need to evolve (changes in hardware, networking, big data, new platforms or even changes in programming culture (you know, the whole lot), and the erratic addition of the latest fancy features, i.e. when the language becomes a playground for hackers and nerds, forever chaotic and immature.
> 
> @Mike Parker
> Finally, dear Mike Parker, since you have deleted my original reply to Russel, may I ask you to delete any answer that quotes my answer, else your censorship looks a bit inconsistent. But consistency is apparently not held in highly regarded here anyway, given your statement from the 19 October 2019:
> 
> "I also don't want to be deleting negative posts just because they're negative. Then we get into the business of deleting replies that quote them, and maybe even losing some actual useful signal in all the noise."
> 
> Here's the full statement: https://forum.dlang.org/post/vqfhwstyyozrsxegquxe@forum.dlang.org
> 
> If it wasn't you, Mike, who took down my answer, please remind that person of your statement on Forum Moderation.
> 
> Anyway, as soon as people have to revert to censorship (it's not the first time here either) they have something to hide. Greatness speaks for itself.

I do not like the censorship but the last your posts I've seen are negative plus do not contain useful information for community. If you disappointed in D that is a normal thing, just go ahead, take another PL and leave us. Please, do not repeat to us that you think we were/are wrong. But if you want to return - welcome back!

On 20.05.20 16:14, Russel Winder wrote:
> On Wed, 2020-05-20 at 10:07 +0000, Chris via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 19 May 2020 at 11:38:48 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
>>> https://users.rust-lang.org/t/dlang-adds-a-borrowchecker-called-the-ob-system-for-ownership-borrowing/42872
>>    [gheli]
>> "It is inspired by Rust's borrow checker, but it fails in
>> comparison to it. It provides very little guarantees and does not
>> prioritize safety. It is being adding (IMO) simply as a PR stunt
>> as the current implementation stands." > One of the Rust illuminati complained about this comment, asking 
people to
> respect others' work. The point was well made and seems to have attracted a
> lot of support.
> 

It is a bit weird that anyone would sign up for the Rust forums for the sole purpose of making a non-PC comment about D. :)

The reaction to the above comment was predictable but I don't think it was necessary. ZiCog's subsequent comment was just as dismissive but it was phrased using nice words so he did not get a wrist slap. Basically it's just a translation of the comment to PC speak. "I prefer to think of it this way."

Personally I prefer the atmosphere of the D forums -- generally respectful and professional, but being respectful is not subordinate to being able to make technical points, passionate debate is allowed and you don't have to spend time deciphering criticism that is disguised as a compliment or wondering whether your point has been taken.

On 5/20/2020 10:49 AM, Chris wrote:
> Finally, dear Mike Parker, since you have deleted my original reply to Russel, may I ask you to delete any answer that quotes my answer, else your censorship looks a bit inconsistent. But consistency is apparently not held in highly regarded here anyway, given your statement from the 19 October 2019:


That post can be justifiably removed for unprofessional demeanor in belittling others. Continue doing so, and they'll be removed, too.

Mike has my full support and his decisions are final.

On 5/20/2020 8:42 AM, bachmeier wrote:
> On Wednesday, 20 May 2020 at 14:14:05 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
> 
>> Programming languages evolve or die. During early stage evolution there is always experimentation. This seems fine – as long as the experiments do not go into a release prior to completion.
> 
> The best example of this is Java. It's evolved a lot over the years, in spite of being extremely heavily used and being an enterprise programming language. The Rust leadership would do well to keep in mind that evolution is not optional. Especially for a language that has a tiny fraction of the popularity of Java (in spite of the front page of Hacker News).

Languages that are used over long periods of time evolve greatly after 1.0. Fortran, Basic, C++, Java, Perl, Pascal, Python, C#, D, etc. C is a notable exception.

On Wednesday, 20 May 2020 at 21:30:16 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>
> Languages that are used over long periods of time evolve greatly after 1.0. Fortran, Basic, C++, Java, Perl, Pascal, Python, C#, D, etc. C is a notable exception.

Before Ansi C came along, C lacked function prototypes and "const". I think an Ansi Standard came way later after "C version 1.0", whatever that really was.

On 5/21/2020 12:02 AM, Araq wrote:
> On Wednesday, 20 May 2020 at 21:30:16 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>>
>> Languages that are used over long periods of time evolve greatly after 1.0. Fortran, Basic, C++, Java, Perl, Pascal, Python, C#, D, etc. C is a notable exception.
> 
> Before Ansi C came along, C lacked function prototypes and "const". I think an Ansi Standard came way later after "C version 1.0", whatever that really was.

I know that well. It's a glacial change compared with what has happened in other languages. C version 1.0 would be K+R C, which was properly standardized in C89, and handful of minor improvements came with C99.