@property - take it behind the woodshed and shoot it?

deadalnix deadalnix at gmail.com
Thu Jan 24 19:57:26 PST 2013


On Thursday, 24 January 2013 at 21:00:32 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:
> On 1/24/13 3:58 PM, mist wrote:
>> Really, all this backwards-compatibility talk is a crap.
>
> There's just a lot of evidence that suggests the contrary. 
> Clearly we don't want or like to be conservative, but 
> apparently we need to.
>

If you or Walter think that D is somehow stable or backward 
compatible, you must both be very high on drugs. Yes that is an 
ad hominem.

Let me tell you a story. This story take place one month ago. A 
guy (me) get the news released version of the compiler. After 
all, he badly needs it as bugs in the previous cause the GC to 
misbehave in very scary ways.

First, some language specs have changed, so his code is broken. 
But hey, that is to be expected and so the guy fix his code. A 
bug is discovered in the compiler, it is a regression, and it 
make the guy's code, once fixed, impossible to compile with 2.061 
AT ALL.

Hopefully a brave knight (Kenji) cam to fight the monstrous 
compiler and finally get it to compile the code it should have 
compiled from day 1. The guy now use a custom patched version of 
the compiler.

No revision of the compiler is released at this point, but worse, 
the guy's code now trigger some other bugs into 2.061 (but not in 
his patched version). The guy can't do D on his mac anymore as he 
have no clue how to do the setup for his patched compiler. After 
all, he is not really an apple guy.

Note that  was already using a custom compiler before 2.060 as 
2.059 already have blocking bugs for me.

D is nothing even remotely close to stable. D introduce breaking 
change with EVERY new release. Worse, D has no sane way to 
introduce such breaking change in a sane way. And suddenly, this 
is an issue ?


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list