As seen on this very same forum / mailing list, some of the members of
the community have decided to fork D over disagreements with how
things are being run.

D is an open source project, and as such in a way meant to be
forked. The D leadership does not endorse the fork, but we also do not
bemoan the people who are involved. We think it is unfortunate that
our scant resources are going to be split, but we acknowledge that we
have as much control over that as we usually do getting contributors
to work on what we think is important.

I personally am going to continue working on a spec [1] for Adam
Ruppe's work [2] on string interpolation. I think he has done great
work and see no reason to not make a D a better language because of
this fork. It was in great part due to his objections to DIP1027 that
it did not get accepted and his insight on the feature have been
invaluable.

In 2023, we took our first steps on a long road to regorganising our
processes. We're continuing on that path in 2024 and expect to pick up
momentum as the year progresses.

We hope that in time the contributors to OpenD will decide to lend
their time instead to the D language.

[1] https://github.com/atilaneves/DIPs/blob/string-interpolation/Interpolation.md
[2] https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/15715

On Monday, 15 January 2024 at 09:46:11 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:

Is there no bottom how low you can go? This is like a manager who gives a former a employee an astronomical raise after giving the notice and the new job is waiting. At that point the manager can give you any amount because it doesn't mean anything, the manager just do it in order to mess with the mind of the former employee.

Also if you believe that the fork was made just because disagreement about DIP1036 and DIP 1027 you are mistaken. The dissatisfaction with the D management and how the project is run has been growing for several years if not over a decade. It is rather surprising that a serious fork wasn't made earlier.

If you think that stopping the fork is going to help, think again. The behaviour of the D management is endemic and cannot be changed because much is linked to your personalities, much to the personally of Walter. For me the desire to remove binary literals was the wakeup call for me that something is not quite right and it cannot be fixed.

Now I cannot stop the D project to include things from openD and vice versa and I see no problems with that. However, trying to infiltrate the openD in order to derail it or influence it is benign and will lead to missed opportunities.

If you have left over work from before the fork, get it done. After that, good bye!

On Monday, 15 January 2024 at 10:11:33 UTC, IGotD- wrote:

The fact these obvious differences seem to blind so many is rather amazing.

I'm not qualified to respond on the merits of either design, however, as a long time C and C++ developer I always saw the benefit of the %s approach.

However, unfortunately as a Windows C and C++ developer some 15 years ago it became fairly obvious C# was king and that meant learning C# and moving to C# interpolate strings.

Move on a few more years, even a hard core %s sprintf guy like myself has to admit C# got it right while of course we all known C++ with it's crazy cout rules got it totally wrong.

My two cents.

On Monday, 15 January 2024 at 10:54:06 UTC, Curious Observer wrote:
And of course, if the language can't provide protection against SQL injection, then at least don't become remember as just another PHP.

"While we have explored the prevalence of XSS CWEs in depth, PHP is the only language with prominent SQL Injection (CWE-89) vulnerabilities [7]"

https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=128108#:~:text=While%20we%20have%20explored%20the,2021%20by%20language%20and%20type.

On Monday, 15 January 2024 at 10:11:33 UTC, IGotD- wrote:

How does your mind invent such bad intentions from a diplomatic and well-meaning attempt to address a political charged issue? Your post is completely unhinged.

On Monday, 15 January 2024 at 15:20:08 UTC, Meta wrote:

I see it as the intentions are benign. The point of the fork was to get away from the D project management and I see the post as an attempt to get a foot into the fork to destabilize it.

I also want to point out that the intention is not to deter anyone who are not in D project management to use openD and contribute. However, if you are on the D project management if you try to get involved in the openD project I'm highly skeptical about your intentions.

The D project should instead welcome the addition to the fork in order revitalize the language and create healthy competition.

On Monday, 15 January 2024 at 09:46:11 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:

One might argue that's what they're doing. D doesn't have the tools in place for the language to evolve or for most people to productively contribute. Rather than arguing for months about things that in the end never get done, code can be added to OpenD and we can see what does and doesn't work.

On Monday, 15 January 2024 at 09:46:11 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:

I was very disappointed to read the whole post and find that the promised elephant was nowhere to be found. The idiom generally means "something huge and obvious that everyone is tiptoeing around as if it doesn't exist ". On contrary it's all been talked about top to bottom, endlessly.

I had hope for some juicy diversion from the endless talk of string interpolation, sliding whatnots and forks up the proverbial... But alas I will have find that elsewhere.

Top marks for click-baity title though!