D2 is really that stable as it is claimed to be?

[bearophile]

Andrei Alexandrescu:

> I'm ambivalent because the matter is fuzzy. It is factually 
> true that new releases will break code. On the other hand, that 
> is the case with most compiler releases even for mature 
> languages (at Facebook upgrading across minor gcc releases 
> _always_ entails significant disruption). On the third hand 
> (sic), there are companies and projects using D in the real 
> world so stating that is unstable would do little else than 
> either shoo people away for no good reason.

While I don't have a solution for that that fuzzy problem, I can 
express some opinions:
- My technical training has taught me to trust honest lists of 
problems more than advertisements of technology wonders that 
break at my first usage;
- I am now keeping lot of D2 code updated and in use, and the 
work needed to keep it working release after release of dmd was a 
bit too much for me. If I fix the code only every release there 
are multiple different sources of breakage and they interact 
making fixing code harder. I solved that compiling dmd once or 
more every week. Dmd compiles in a very short time, and I test my 
whole code base in a short time, both at compile-time and in 
unittests. Now there only one source of breaking, I know what's 
the cause of the breaking because it's from the last days of 
merged patches, and fixing code takes a very short time.
- Often the "breakage" is actually just an exposition of true or 
latent bugs in my D code. Such "breaking" is welcome and I want 
more of it.

Bye,
bearophile