Re: Isn't it about time for D3?

ketmar via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d at puremagic.com
Tue Jun 13 05:23:19 PDT 2017


Sebastien Alaiwan wrote:

> My point precisely was that "not splitting D1/D2" might correspond to 
> "doing things right".

"not splitting" here means "we're stuck with D1". deprecation cycle of 
several years (not counting the time required to actually *start* the 
process) means "no evolution".

i must make myself clear here, i guess: i value "good language" way more 
than "stable language". i absolutely don't mind fixing my code if it makes 
it better/more clear/etc. while it's hard to sell "constantly evolving" 
language to Big Enterprise Wheels, not making breaking changes means 
cloning worst C++ feature. ;-)


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list