Moving back to .NET

[Chris via Digitalmars-d]

On Tuesday, 22 September 2015 at 14:46:30 UTC, Ola Fosheim 
Grøstad wrote:
> On Tuesday, 22 September 2015 at 13:38:33 UTC, Chris wrote:
>> too long. But as I said before, it's only from D that users 
>> expect perfection, other languages are accepted as they are, 
>> warts and all.
>
> I don't think that is true.

I do, because every other (new) language is embraced as _the_ way 
to go, while in the D community even minor issues are blown out 
of proportion.

>  A problem for D today is that D1 was originally deliberately 
> constrained, which made perfect sense when the language was 
> small (just like it makes sense for Go today).  But D2 is 
> deliberately open, yet D2 has added features without redefining 
> the core language from D1 first. It is possible to fix it, by 
> defining a minimal D language and move everything else to 
> libraries, but not without breaking backwards compatibility.

Then we need a transition strategy. I wouldn't mind refactoring 
my code in order to adapt it to changes that are for the better 
in the long run. However, I wouldn't want it to happen in a 
sudden way that would render all my code useless. Nobody would 
accept this.