new DIP41: dmd/rdmd command line overhaul.

[Dicebot]

On Thursday, 23 May 2013 at 16:19:26 UTC, Jesse Phillips wrote:
> I realize this, but you are arguing by using examples of those 
> that don't ever want to change (they do exist, and they only 
> change because they are forced to).

I am using examples of real-world stability maniacs I have 
personally encountered :) Those guys (management) do want to 
change process though if it brings some potential profit. They 
will only do it in a fully controlled way though and once in a 
few years, thus all the hype about LTS.

> There shouldn't need to bring up the works/doesn't argument 
> because that isn't what we are after. We want to provide some 
> category of bug fixes or library additions for a defined period 
> of time, while elsewhere we are making language improvements, 
> which will eventual freeze and then later replace previous 
> release.

Well, I have been proposing something like this in one old thread 
I remember you posting to :)

> Those who wish to never receive a non-breaking change are stuck 
> with whatever version of the compiler they started building 
> with. I'm not saying this to be mean, only because you can't 
> change the compiler without the potential of having broken 
> something somewhere (and now someone relying on that broken 
> behavior).

That is not mean, that is reasonable. Only deal is about 
categorization - I argue that "backwards compatible or not" is a 
more useful one that "feature or bug-fix".