Isn't it about time for D3?

[Wulfklaue via Digitalmars-d]

On Tuesday, 13 June 2017 at 20:51:37 UTC, ketmar wrote:
> Patrick Schluter wrote:
> the main reason for D3 is not language changes, but 
> workarounding "don't break user code" thingy. it is completely 
> impossible to experiment freely or introduce breaking changes 
> in D2 (for a reason, there is nothing bad in it).

Can you actually show us examples of what you think needs to 
break?

Maybe i am too new to D but beyond a few oddities ( std.array 
needed for string manipulation, ... ) i see not a lot wrong.

Do not underestimate the effect that rewriting a standard library 
has on a language. Beyond sucking resources away ( D is not a 
very big community project like Rust ).

Frankly one of the reasons why i ended up with D. It has the 
kitchen and sink, has everything from generics, meta programming 
and beyond. And the most import factor, it is STABLE. I am 
working on a big project that needs stability for the next 10+ 
years. This D3 discussion is discouraging to read.

D its flaws are the Phobos documentation layout ( what is 
partially solved by the Library documentation ), somewhat lacking 
support on the editors, and other points. Mostly to do because of 
the small community/lack of full time paid programmers.

So call me confused as to what is missing and needs such radical 
changes? Because i can tell clearly from reading past forums, the 
whole D1/D2 came up in so much topics it actually made me look 
first into other languages. A D3 discussion is silly given the 
history of the language.

Unless i am wrong there seem to be only one or two people 
actually pushing this D3 idea...