Vision for the D language - stabilizing complexity?

[Andrew Godfrey via Digitalmars-d]

On Thursday, 21 July 2016 at 08:40:03 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad 
wrote:
> On Saturday, 16 July 2016 at 13:09:22 UTC, Andrew Godfrey wrote:
>> ideas that would require a major version change. The thing 
>> about that is that it can't be done incrementally; it's the 
>> rare kind of thing that would need to be planned long in 
>> advance, and would have to amount to a huge improvement to 
>> justify even considering it.
>
> It does not need to be planned long in advance, it only 
> requires official backing as a side project. They could freeze 
> current D2 as a stable release and also work on a cleanup.
>
> Instead you get people working on their own forks (myself 
> included), or spin-off languages that goes nowhere.  Because 
> you need momentum.  As a result neither D or the spin-offs gain 
> momentum. And there are several spin-offs (some dead).

You seem to be assuming that everyone already agrees on which set 
of changes should be made to the language. (Otherwise, how could 
you expect anyone to "officially back" a side project?)

But agreeing on which changes to make and, especially, which to 
NOT make, is the hard part. And it's why you'd need a lot of 
planning & discussion up front (if any of us non-founders wanted 
to participate). And many people don't understand this, which IMO 
is behind a lot of hard feelings in the forums.