Moving towards D2 2.061 (and D1 1.076)

Leandro Lucarella leandro.lucarella at sociomantic.com
Sat Dec 22 11:32:01 PST 2012


On Friday, 14 December 2012 at 00:42:58 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 12/13/2012 4:17 PM, David Nadlinger wrote:
>> 1. How much work would it be for the guys at Remedy Games to 
>> convert their
>> codebase from [] to @()?
>
> I don't know. All I know is it's a lot of code.

You should ask. It's really crazy to ask the WHOLE community to 
take the bullet for some company using an experimental unreleased 
version of the compiler without even knowing if there is a good 
reason why they can't just fix their code.

And in any case, this is theirs problem, they should be using a 
special version of the compiler (the one that accepts broken 
code), not all the rest!

This is just completely crazy...

>> 3. Why is the message you introduced a warning instead of a 
>> normal deprecation
>> error?
>
> Because skipping the warning phase has historically been too 
> abrupt for people.

Oh, lord. And then you can't see why deprecation as warnings 
should have existed in the first place and why it shouldn't be 
the default...

>> versions, can't they just use a patched version until they 
>> have made the switch?
>
> Like any major user of a language, they want confidence in our 
> full support of them. Asking them to use a patched or branch 
> version of the compiler does not inspire confidence.

Yeah, introducing broken unconsulted features to the language and 
then wanting to keep backwards compatibility for them does 
inspire a lot of confidence.

Seriously Walter, you're doing it all backwards...

> What I'm doing is hardly unique in business history. When 
> Boeing designed the 707, they showed the prototype to Pan Am,
[...]

And no, your nice stories about Boing doesn't help here, get over 
it, you're dealing with an opensource project now, not with an 
internal project of an aeronaval industry.

> Ok, we're not Boeing or Westinghouse. But we have an 
> opportunity to go big time, and I'm not going to let that get 
> away from us.

This is extremely lame unless you present a good case for Remedy 
Games. Just saying "they have a lot of code" isn't good enough.


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list