Isn't it about time for D3?

[solidstate1991 via Digitalmars-d]

On Sunday, 11 June 2017 at 22:53:44 UTC, ketmar wrote:
>
> so what? "nearly destroyed" != "destroyed". as i said, D is 
> alive and ok, nothing fatal happens. backing fear of changes 
> with "last time it almost destroyed us" won't do any good in 
> the long term: it will ultimately end with having no changes at 
> all, D will stagnate and die.
>
> changing is a natural thing for evolution, even breaking 
> change. evaluating was what done wrong/inoptimal, and improving 
> on that it the thing that will keep D not only alive, but will 
> make it better and better. otherwise, accumulated legacy will 
> inevitably turn D into another C++, and somebody will create E 
> (or something ;-). why don't create E outselves, and call it D3 
> instead?

E already exists 
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_(programming_language) + 
AmigaE), two things having the same name often doom one of them 
into obscurity (see SDLang, which originally was called SDL).

There were already a few changes in the language (use of static 
imports instead of directly accessing functions/libraries, etc), 
just as we're adding to the language, we can remove rarely used 
functions by first making them deprecated, then removing them 
altogether as time passes on.