Final by default?

Mike none at none.com
Wed Mar 12 21:13:41 PDT 2014


On Thursday, 13 March 2014 at 00:40:34 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev 
wrote:
>>
>> The saying goes, "you can't make a bucket of yogurt without a 
>> spoonful of rennet". The pattern of resetting customer code 
>> into the next version must end. It's the one thing that both 
>> current and future users want: a pattern of stability and 
>> reliability.
>
> Doesn't this sort of seal the language's fate in the long run, 
> though? Eventually, new programming languages will appear which 
> will learn from D's mistakes, and no new projects will be 
> written in D.
>
> Wasn't it here that I heard that a language which doesn't 
> evolve is a dead language?
>

IMO, one of the reasons D exists is all the historical baggage 
C/C++ chose to carry instead of evolving.

I can cite a business case I had the displeasure of working on as 
well.  They chose not to evolve, and instead ended up spending 
$11 million years later to rewrite their infrastructure while 
maintaining the antiquated one so they could still function.  And 
the latter was never realized.  They're probably due for another 
large, time consuming, disruptive, expensive project in the near 
future.

Point is, it's in the best interest of both languages and 
businesses building on those languages to evolve, or they just 
end up paying the piper later (with interest).

Gradual, managed change is where it's at, IMNSHO.



More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list