Vision for the D language - stabilizing complexity?

[Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d]

On 7/18/2016 6:48 AM, Andrew Godfrey wrote:
> We risk scaring away potential community members, and alienating existing ones,
> by the way we say "no" to proposals for breaking changes. We could improve how
> we say "no", by having a place to point people to. Potential topics:

Anything we do will risk scaring away people. The only answer is we have to do 
what is right.


> 3) Why we feel that breaking changes risk killing D outright. (I just don't see
> it. I wonder if we're confusing "dfixable" breaking changes, with other more
> disruptive kinds (such as Tango=>Phobos).)

Because if you thoroughly break a person's code, you put them in a position of 
rewriting it, and they may not choose to rewrite it in D3. They may choose a 
more stable language.

I have many older programs in different languages. It's nice if they recompile 
and work. It's not nice if I have to go figure out how they work again so I can 
get them to work again.