Re: Isn't it about time for D3?

[ketmar via Digitalmars-d]

Wulfklaue wrote:

> 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?

it would be a very long post. ;-) i scratched it a little above, though. my 
private dmd fork has 100+ patches only to dmd itself, for example, and some 
are disruptive enough that alot of my code is marked with `module a is aliced;`.

> 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.

and one of mine reasons was "yay, it is relatively new, unencumbered with 
alot of legacy, and *evolving*!" none of it (our reasoning) is better over 
another. ;-)

> D its flaws are the Phobos documentation layout

one of the things i absolutely don't care about, for example. ;-) besides, 
dpldocs rox.

> So call me confused as to what is missing and needs such radical changes?

evolving. something very opposite to "stability", as expected by some 
enterprise users. remember, not all D users are enterprise users. ;-) some 
of us (me!) came here 'cause D is fun, not 'cause D is "stable", and we may 
value stability much less than other kinds of users.

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

as for me, i'm not "pushing" it, i am merely "supporting" it. just to make 
sure that other optinions besides "no, we don't need D3" are not seeing as 
non-existant only due to their bearers being silent. ;-)