Historical moment: D2 is now D

[Nick Sabalausky]

"Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy at yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:op.vwvownr8eav7ka at localhost.localdomain...
> On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 16:11:34 -0400, Mike James <foo at bar.com> wrote:
>
>> "Andrei Alexandrescu" <SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> wrote in message
>> news:istj83$1rsa$1 at digitalmars.com...
>>> I think we all agree that it is appropriate to characterize D2 to mean 
>>> "The
>>> D Programming Language".
>>>
>>> From here on, we have changed the website
>>> http://d-programming-language.org to reflect that reality. D simply 
>>> refers
>>> to what was formerly known as D2, and D1 stays D1.
>>>
>>> Also, today Walter will change the "D" links from digitalmars.com to 
>>> point
>>> to http://d-programming-language.org, which is now the official site of
>>> the D programming language. Expect (and please contribute) many
>>> improvements of that site going forward.
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Andrei
>>
>> So D2 becomes D.
>> And D1 becomes D--.
>
> D0
>
> Seriously though, I'm not sure why we have to do this...  It's weird to 
> have D1 and D.  To me, D1 > D, like in D, D1, D2, D3
>
> I hope this pattern doesn't continue for D3 (well, actually, would that 
> then be D2?)
>
> Why can't D2 be D version 2, and D1 be D version 1, where both languages 
> are the D programming language?  It's how other languages do things (C#, 
> php, python, etc.).
>

Yea. I'm happy about the D v2.x  branch being the official "main" one. But 
taking the already-heavily-used way to refer to "unspecified version of D / 
just D in general" and officially changing it to specifically mean the 2.x 
branch is guaranteed to lead to confusion (and likely alienate D1 fans). I 
really don't like having terminology change. It's a breaking change.