Isn't it about time for D3?

[bachmeier via Digitalmars-d]

On Wednesday, 14 June 2017 at 20:35:15 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad 
wrote:
> On Wednesday, 14 June 2017 at 12:22:36 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
>> If a code is to be left untouched but the compiler not 
>> archived then the code must be recompiled and amended as 
>> needed with each new compiler that is accepted in the workflow.
>
> I don't disagree with the general sentiment than one have to 
> evolve the codebase along with the tooling, but if C, C++, 
> Python and JavaScript didn't provide backwards compatibility in 
> their maintained "production lines" then I most likely wouldn't 
> use them and switch to something more stable...
>
> So, I have no problem with Python going to Pyton3.x, as long as 
> they update and maintain Python 2.7...

It's a bigger problem for D than for those languages. If you 
introduce too many changes, the tools stop working, and we don't 
have the manpower to fix them. The same goes for libraries. A 
language with a larger group of developers, like Python, can be 
less conservative about breaking changes and not have it disrupt 
the ecosystem.