DLF September 2023 Planning Update

[max haughton]

On Tuesday, 14 November 2023 at 17:57:36 UTC, Steven 
Schveighoffer wrote:
> On Tuesday, 14 November 2023 at 16:07:26 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
>> [...]
>
> What do we want the first experience with D to be like?
>
> A person trying out D, who writes a one-file simple application 
> using phobos *does not care* that a lib abandoned in 2018 still 
> compiles. So why should they be the ones paying the penalty?
>
> I get that we want to stop breaking builds. But the answer 
> there is simple -- provide a way to do it by attributing the 
> files, or by telling the compiler "these files are edition X" 
> or whatever. And once you attribute it, it never breaks again. 
> Sounds like a reasonable cost to me for those who want 
> long-lasting code!
>
> There are other options here. Like use the filesystem to 
> identify the edition either via config or filenames.
>
>> [...]
>
> That's not any better. If you have to opt-in to the language as 
> it exists, people are going to quit immediately. I'm not joking 
> about this. Imagine spending 2 hours trying to figure out why 
> your app that is trying out some new feature doesn't compile, 
> only to find out after posting online that it was looking at 
> some ancient version of phobos.
>
> -Steve

Ergonomically it potentially doesn't have to be quite so binary 
e.g. a C++ compiler will tell you to opt-in to a new language 
version rather than just erroring.

But, if you have the logic to do that, you can also infer an 
*older* edition to keep the abandonware working even though by 
default you get the most recent one.