Do we need a time-out in D evolution?

[eao197]

On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 00:33:42 +0400, Walter Bright  
<newshound1 at digitalmars.com> wrote:

> Johan Granberg wrote:
>> Didn't Walter say that he would branch the compiler into a current  
>> stable
>> (what we have now) and an experimental 2.0  compiler. If that is done  
>> isn't
>> that a clear signal to everyone that the 1.014 (or whatewer the version  
>> is
>> at the moment) compiler is the one to use for production code?
>
> It's getting pretty clear to me that the 1.0 series won't get any new  
> features, just bug fixes, as the recent 1.015 release suggests.
>
> The new features will all go into the 2.0 series.

But for me it looks like: it is better to wait the next version of D  
language than writing something in D1.0 and rewritting it later.

I think a part of the problem is that there are many technologists and  
early adopters in D community. They all with you have made great and  
incredible work for D -- thank you for that! But it is time now when more  
and more pragmatics looks to D as a serious alternative to C++ (Java, C#,  
you name it). And pragmatics have different view and different demands for  
the language stability and the language evolution. So please listen our  
wishes too.

As a pragmatic (I hope) I think it is a very sad when a language gets  
incompatible changes. I didn't need to rewrite my C++ code when switched  
 from one C++ version to another, the same for Java, the same for Ruby. C#  
is a good example too. So I ask you: don't make D3.0 (and even D4.0)  
incompatible with D2.0 please.

-- 
Regards,
Yauheni Akhotnikau