Long-term evolution of D

[Sebastián E. Peyrott]

In article <duobud$1rjk$1 at digitaldaemon.com>, Brian Hay says...
>
>Has anyone considered the long-term positive evolution of D, assuming a 
>successful version 1.0 release and growing interest?
>
>If D is meant to be "a reengineering of C and C++" I think we also need 
>to adopt a post version 1.0 development paradigm different from that of 
>C and C++, otherwise we risk repeating the history of those languages 
>i.e. how do we avoid or minimize the problems of the past or is it folly 
>to even think we can - is the "F Programming Language" inevitable 2 
>decades from now?
>
>I'm not talking about road maps and feature sets but moreso the 
>framework within which D will evolve as a language in the long-term in 
>order to avoid, as much as possible, the legacy crud, competing vested 
>interests and community fragmentation that begins to hamper language 
>development after a decade or so.
>
>The specification of the D Programming Language is largely a one-person 
>effort, albeit with much community input, and I think at the present 
>time it benefits from this model, given Walter's extensive language 
>knowledge and compiler implementation experience. But what happens when 
>D does become the success we all know it can be? Is standardization 
>(ISO, ECMA etc) an option?
>
>It might be too early to consider such things. Just a thought.
>
>Brian.

IMO, although certain assumptions can be made, there's one thing we cannot be 
entirely sure about: hardware. What type of hardware will there be in the 
future? Will D be usefull in such architectures? Will it be easy to adapt it? 
Will we need an entirely new specification? 
It may be possible to avoid making the same mistakes once again...the question 
is, will that be enough?

--
Sebastián.