D3 is potentially damaging
ixid
nuaccount at gmail.com
Tue May 1 18:08:32 PDT 2012
The idea of D3 is a worrying one- it suggests a number of things
that would not be good for the success and adoption of the
language. That the language is experimental and more of a pet
project, that D2 has a shelf-life and will be abandoned. I can
see D going in two directions: it can gradually grow and
progressively gain areas where it's the standard choice or it
will be a fairly small community of fans of an eternal language
project. Python 2 and 3 has been a very messy split, while
languages with a greater sense of continuity do better for it in
my view, having one standard version of that language. Breaking
changes may be desirable but I don't think labelling that as
v2/v3 is a good idea, make it one thing with one suggested
version.
What are the aims of D3 that aren't aims of D2? What could be
done then that can't be done now? Wouldn't it be better to make
breaking changes sooner rather than later?
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list