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