DIP56 - inlining

[Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d]

On Wednesday, February 04, 2015 09:07:12 ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> D is in the same position now. "that ship is sailed", "we don't break the
> code", "happy legacy, folks!"

Not quite. The C++ folks basically won't break backwards compatibility for
anything. There are a few rare cases in the recent standards where they
deprecated something that was just outright a bad idea and that no one
sensible was using better anyway (e.g. non-empty throw specifiers). With D,
we're reaching the point where we don't want to break backwards
compatability if we can avoid it, and the bar for doing so is relatively
high, but we'll still do it if we deem that the cost is worth gain (though
part of the problem is how subjective that can be). So, we're not as rigid
as C++ is, but we _are_ past the point where we purposefully make breaking
changes on a regular basis (though unfortunately, regressions get through
with pretty much every release). So, anyone looking for a particularly
malleable language is going to be unhappy with D, but unlike C++, it's not
set in stone.

- Jonathan M Davis