Who favors the current D1 situation?

[bearophile]

Walter Bright:
> People who do work in large 
> corporations managing extremely large codebases with legions of 
> programmers working on them have made this abundantly clear to me.

You have to be really careful about adding features supported by such "evidence". Dynamic languages show that often such people are wrong, or they bark at the wrong tree, or there are alternative ways (totally different ones, that they can't even think about, like test driven development in a dynamically typed language) to solve similar problems. What they say are ways to solve problems in languages like C++ and Java, but experience shows that totally different ways can be invented, in different languages, to avoid some of those problems.

(I am for the backporting of some features of 2.x to 1.x, because I don't like the const system of 2.x, and I'm not going to use it (for now), but I understand that it may lead to too much work for D developers).

Bye,
bearophile