D3 is potentially damaging

[Era Scarecrow]

On Wednesday, 2 May 2012 at 01:11:52 UTC, Alex Rønne Petersen 
wrote:

> Yes and no. In theory, it's good to stabilize the language now 
> and make a new version of it later which has breaking changes. 
> In practice, that's annoying as hell. We've already seen how 
> slow the transition from D1 to D2 is (not was; it's still 
> happening!). D2 to D3 is going to be even slower (see in 
> particular your Python 2 vs 3 example) simply because more and 
> more people are going to be using D2 and therefore can't afford 
> to port their applications to D3.

  Hmmm. I'd Hope it isn't going to happen for a while.

  But IF there is a D3 coming then it would be absolutely 
necessary that the D2 and D3 code could call each other 
seamlessly. D3 if/when it comes hopefully would be seen as the 
next step towards the ideal language which we would want and go 
to: This includes style, standard library, functionality, syntax, 
and perhaps collective experience of dozens or hundreds or 
programmers.

  Likely D3 will adjust features; adding/removing that would break 
D2 code as it stands now; but at the same time not far from where 
we came from. With how clean and workable the syntax is right now 
with D2 and the signatures alone you could plug into the D2 
code/interfaces without problems (Assuming D3 uses the same 
signature system (which most of it I don't see a changing)), then 
there shouldn't be a problem. But still I don't see that 
happening just yet.

  We will have to watch and wait to see what happens. In the 
meantime, I don't want to ever do any real C++ if I can help it...