On Thursday, 18 November 2021 at 17:31:24 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:

> Even C has not stopped evolving. And C++.  Why should we stop now?  The time when D stops evolving is the time it's dead.

I am not convinced D has figured out how to evolve. More honestly, I am convinced D is not capable of evolving, and will in ten years look pretty close to what it is now. Whether that is good or bad is up to each programmer to decide. Perl 5 (renamed to Perl 7, but that was only for marketing purposes) is still widely used and provides a solid platform after 27 years. The innovative changes are now in the barely-used Raku.

On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 05:46:52PM +0000, bachmeier via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Thursday, 18 November 2021 at 17:31:24 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> 
> > Even C has not stopped evolving. And C++.  Why should we stop now? The time when D stops evolving is the time it's dead.
> 
> I am not convinced D has figured out how to evolve. More honestly, I am convinced D is not capable of evolving, and will in ten years look pretty close to what it is now. Whether that is good or bad is up to each programmer to decide.

That depends.  It's good in the sense that code I have today will likely still compile then, modulo some small changes to upgrade the syntax perhaps.  It's not so good in the sense that design decisions that were in hindsight the wrong ones will remain and never be corrected.

I'm seriously hoping Andrei pulls off stdv2, because that's the only way I see to move forward with Phobos.  Otherwise Phobos is just stuck in a stagnant state and there's no way to move forward.


> Perl 5 (renamed to Perl 7, but that was only for marketing purposes) is still widely used and provides a solid platform after 27 years. The innovative changes are now in the barely-used Raku.

Yeah, I even forgot it was called Raku once and had to look it up.  :-D I didn't see anything particular inspiring about it that would motivate me to spend the effort to learn it.


T

-- 
This sentence is false.

On Thursday, 18 November 2021 at 17:59:06 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> I'm seriously hoping Andrei pulls off stdv2, because that's the only way I see to move forward with Phobos.

It's that or we fork the language and seize control then just start actually fixing things.

On Thursday, 18 November 2021 at 17:31:24 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 05:21:40PM +0000, Guillaume Piolat via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 16 November 2021 at 08:55:27 UTC, Abdulhaq wrote:
>> > Is there a set of features that, when fully working, will mean that D2 is now finished? Or will it forever be in a state of ongoing feature development?
>> > 
>> > We all know that properly finishing and polishing the last 10% of a software project takes 90% of the time. Is there a timescale for that?  What platforms will it support?
>
> Even C has not stopped evolving. And C++.  Why should we stop now?  The time when D stops evolving is the time it's dead.
>
>
>> What is an example of a successful language that would stop feature development?
>> 
>> If D would stop feature development, it wouldn't solve the "billion posts" problem of people not vested in D complaining loudly in the D forums.
>
> I suspect these are just the vocal minority. The rest of the happy D users are too busy actually writing code than debating on the forums.
>
>
> T

I'm not suggesting, as I made explicitly clear in a previous post, to stop new feature development.

I think some D users would like to see increased user numbers and are happy to get good practical suggestions as to how to do that. Andrei for one. It would help the hobbyists too because there would be more hands to do more work.

On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 06:03:07PM +0000, Adam D Ruppe via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Thursday, 18 November 2021 at 17:59:06 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> > I'm seriously hoping Andrei pulls off stdv2, because that's the only way I see to move forward with Phobos.
> 
> It's that or we fork the language and seize control then just start actually fixing things.

I have to say, the thought has crossed my mind a few times.  Only thing is, this community is already so tiny, splitting it would probably mean death to both resulting dialects.

Though on 2nd thoughts, forking *Phobos* could actually be viable... Even put it up on dub as a Phobos alternative and let the two compete, see which one survives.


T

-- 
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell. "How come he didn't put 'I think' at the end of it?" -- Anonymous

On Thursday, 18 November 2021 at 18:20:18 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 06:03:07PM +0000, Adam D Ruppe via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>> On Thursday, 18 November 2021 at 17:59:06 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
>> > I'm seriously hoping Andrei pulls off stdv2, because that's the only way I see to move forward with Phobos.
>> 
>> It's that or we fork the language and seize control then just start actually fixing things.
>
> I have to say, the thought has crossed my mind a few times.  Only thing is, this community is already so tiny, splitting it would probably mean death to both resulting dialects.
>
> Though on 2nd thoughts, forking *Phobos* could actually be viable... Even put it up on dub as a Phobos alternative and let the two compete, see which one survives.
>
>
> T

Dlang is not alone [1], but at least Evan has strong motivations behind that [2].

Forking, well ... Sociomantic tsunami (well, it was a *way* different time period) or Weka mekka ...

I still think that the first thing to do is push for a language cleanup, prior to start taking care of Phobos. Walter wandered what happened with copyctor, aren't they supposed to solve some critic low level problem paving the way to ...? The impression is that nobody have the complete and sound design in mind (no pun), but if such a case, removing complexity is better than adding. I would rather fork the frontend, and start removing things, like class alias this, shared, and (why not) start thinking if the whole const/immutable things as it is worths the complexity it brings in the codebase.

Again, my 2c ...

[1] https://discourse.elm-lang.org/t/a-process-for-core-library-fixes-and-improvements/7916/17
[2] https://youtu.be/o_4EX4dPppA