As someone also working on a minimal programming language, I might share some of the values, but using Go as an implementation language is an immediate turnoff.
Also, not having a single code example on the linked page is super-annoying.
People need to stop that.
And all of this due to the mistaken design decision to stick with the obsolete readiness-based model instead of going with the superior completion-based model.
(You can build a readiness-based API on top of a completion-based API, but not the other way around.)
git worktree is just so much easier to work with if you want to work on multiple versions or branches of some code.
It allows having multiple IDE instances open, all fully functional and indexed, and handing over commits from one worktree to another without having to fetch constantly in between.
Trying to emulate this with multiple clones feels like trying to do OOP in C – sure one can do it, but it’s pointless hassle compared to a fleshed-out solution that works right out of the box.
Not to mention it’s so much faster and more efficient than git clone.
What a confused post.
There is not much to learn, so just do it? It’s not a relevant investment that would require much thought.
“apparently it’s a better safer C++, but I’m not going to switch because I can technically do all that stuff in C++”
The main difference between C++ and D was that (for most of the time in the past) D required a garbage collector.
So, D was a language with similar Algol-style syntax targeting a completely different niche from C++.
Trying to correct your quote, it should read something like “I’m not going to switch because I can’t technically do all that stuff in D that I’m doing in C++” for it to make any sense.
Oh, good idea … any preference on the first? :-)
I have some articles on naming specific areas of program code that people might find helpful:
Happily using it for presentation slides.
Perhaps, the linked page just does a poor job of selling that.