Isn't it about time for D3?
Mike Parker via Digitalmars-d
digitalmars-d at puremagic.com
Tue Jun 13 07:57:31 PDT 2017
On Tuesday, 13 June 2017 at 13:29:45 UTC, jmh530 wrote:
> Companies clearly value C++'s backwards compatibility. However,
> if there's one lesson from the D1/D2 or the Python 2/Python 3
> split, it's that it's hugely disruptive (so much so that I find
The D1/D2 split was actually a unifier. It was the Phobos/Tango
divide that was the problem. D2 healed that rift, brought us a
single runtime that both libraries could share, improved Phobos,
and was relatively easy for most projects to transition to
(Sociomantic's experience was not common), and D1 was eventually
retired. We're all better off for it. A vastly different
situation than what happened with Python, where you find 2.x
releases continuing on and some projects requiring one or the
other.
That said, at this stage, I can't imagine a D2/D3 transition
being anything other than negatively disruptive.
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list