State of Play

[Tomas Lindquist Olsen]

On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 9:02 PM, Walter Bright
<newshound1 at digitalmars.com> wrote:
> Tomas Lindquist Olsen wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 8:17 PM, Walter Bright
>> <newshound1 at digitalmars.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Denis Koroskin wrote:
>>>>
>>>> One of the breaking changes that I recall was that you made Posix
>>>> identifier built-in and thus any custom Posix versioning became an
>>>> error. Not sure if it was introduced in 1.041, though, but it is
>>>> still a breaking change.
>>>
>>> It was more of a build system change, but I get your point. It shows that
>>> even trivial changes are a bad idea for D1.
>>>
>>
>> Everyone certainly does not think it was a bad idea. If trivial things
>> like this sets people off, they should at least look at the problem
>> (and comment those few lines) before complaining.
>>
>> All my humble opinion of course.
>
> To me, it illustrates a fundamental disconnect. One cannot have both a 100%
> stable language and yet introduce improvements to it.
>

I don't necessarily want a 100% stable language. In fact I don't. But
obviously asking for both is just silly.
The only thing I'm not happy about is if code that used to work, still
compiles, but no longer works. This is where the real problem is and
I've seen it several times. MinWin, APaGeD and probably others.