Breaking compatibilyt hurts

[Don]

torhu wrote:
> On 03.12.2009 1:13, 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 
>>
> 
> Looks like that guy has a thing for Lisp, so he came up with a bunch of 
> excuses why he shouldn't use anything else.
> 
> The thing with D 1 is that it hasn't really taken off.  So it's not 
> unreasonable to sacrifice D 1 comaptibility if it can help make D 2 
> better, obviously in the hope that D 2 will take off.  Note how the 
> title of Andrei's book is NOT "The D 2.0 Programming Language."

D1 was a bit of a line in the sand, anyway. There was absolutely no 
effort put into making D1 stable before beginning D2. It's more of a 
stable snapshot.