If D becomes a failure, what's the key reason, do you think?

[Jeremy]

In article <e8rshs$1rc0$1 at digitaldaemon.com>, clayasaurus says...
>
>Bruno Medeiros wrote:
>> Walter Bright wrote:
>>> Kyle Furlong wrote:
>>>> *Standing Ovation*
>>>
>>> Yeah, that's concerned me as well. But it isn't just me trying to make 
>>> it perfect, everyone's got their favorite bug/feature that must get in 
>>> before 1.0.
>>>
>>> So what do you say we just call D right now *1.0* and move on? It's 
>>> not like D will stop undergoing improvements.
>>>
>> 
>> Here comes the contrarian view:
>> I think the people that want 1.0 ASAP (I'm not one of them btw) want 
>> more than just the branding "1.0", they want some guarantees that the 
>> language is good enough to be usable as is, and they likely also want 
>> "1.0" to mean that 2.0 won't be radically different from 1.0 . For 
>> example, let's consider this:
>> 
>> clayasaurus wrote:
>>  >
>>  > This will make two groups of people happy,
>>  >
>>  > #1) People who are waiting for D 1.0 for very large / commercial
>>  > products, as well as perhaps a D 1.0 book to start the publicity tour
>>  >
>> 
>> In this case of wanting to write a 1.0 book or doing very large 
>> commercial products, then "1.0" actually should indicate that the 
>> language is good and polished enough as is. They want a finished 
>> product, and likely also want that 2.0 won't be radically different from 
>> 1.0, so that the book won't quickly become mostly obsolete, or that the 
>> large-scale product will need a lot of work to be updated to 2.0 .
>> 
>> Taking too long to reach a true 1.0 is a slightly bad in my opinion, but 
>> I think it is *much* worse to shove a "1.0" product that is flawed, 
>> unpolished, inconsistent, incomplete, etc.. And as is clear to all here, 
>> D still has many design issues that need to be worked out (not to 
>> mention Phobos).
>> 
>> 
>
>If it wasn't clear in my post, I do think 2.0 should be radically 
>different, otherwise there is no big improvement.
>
>Walter has not been inclined lately to include radical new features 
>because there is 'too much water under the bridge.' If that is the case, 
>we should get a 1.0 out now and then use 2.0 for the _real_ improvements.
>
>Maybe not even call it D 2.0, but D++ ;) so people don't expect code 
>compatibility.
>

Eh, I bet "D" will not be very successful if "D++" is *already* planned to phase
out "D" (and not be compatible).