Breaking backwards compatiblity

[Boris Wang]

the ABI of linux is good enough,  it's based on a mature os : UNIX.

forget the name of D, name is not important.

There is no need for a replacement for c in OS area, because c is the best
high level language match current CPU architecture
Why c++ is so complexity? because the cpu architecture is not object
oriented.

energy save, high performance, develop effective, in the area focus on
these, is the market for D : "Half" system program language.
and the big point for growth, can call c/c++ binary from D source.

sorry about digressing from the subject.


2012/3/10 Walter Bright <newshound2 at digitalmars.com>

> On 3/9/2012 3:09 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>
>> Keep in mind, too, that Linux has decades of legacy and millions of users.
>> That's a *very* different situation from Phobos. Apples and oranges.
>>
>
> Linux has had a habit of not breaking existing code from decades ago. I
> think that is one reason why it has millions of users.
>
> Remember, every time you break existing code you reset your user base back
> to zero.
>
> I'm *still* regularly annoyed by the writefln => writeln change in D1 to
> D2, and I agreed to that change. Grrrr.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20120401/e4b7a346/attachment-0001.html>