Breaking compatibilyt hurts

[Walter Bright]

Jesse Phillips wrote:
> This has come up as one issue for adoption to D. D2.x is on its way,
> unstable, and D1.x is getting the ax. While Walter has said that the
> compiler will continue to get support, no one in the community knows
> what the library support will be like. I came across an article where
> even Python wasn't chosen for a project because of the eminent
> release of Python 3. He also dismisses Ruby and Clojure for other
> complaints people have expressed about D.
> 
> --
> http://postabon.posterous.com/why-i-chose-common-lisp-over-python-ruby-and
> 
> 
> I'm not claiming D is in the wrong in its chosen path. This shows
> that other languages deal with similar issues, but is one thing for
> someone familiar with a language to not choose it for a project than
> it is to get someone to look into a new language.

One of the comments in there:

"One of the greatest problems I found when trying Common Lisp was the 
large number of implementations and the disorganization of the library 
space. It is hard for a newcomer to decide which libraries are 
available, which are maintained, which are dead."

You can't please everyone.

I also think his criticism of Python is invalid. He's got just what he 
wants, Python 2.0, but complains it won't get improvements. Then he 
complains when it gets improvements in the form of Python 3.0.

You just can't have it both ways.