Final by default?

[Xavier Bigand]

Le 13/03/2014 05:13, Mike a écrit :
> 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.
>
Just like I proposed creating a new major version every year will be 
gradual with a know rhythm and well announced.