Isn't it about time for D3?

[Ola Fosheim Grøstad via Digitalmars-d]

On Saturday, 17 June 2017 at 04:32:41 UTC, Liam McGillivray wrote:
> On Wednesday, 14 June 2017 at 12:08:16 UTC, Mike wrote:
>> > THINGS TO DROP
>> --------------
>> * C++ interoperabiliy
>> Walter's right:  memory safety is going to kill C and C++ will 
>> go with it.  Don't waste time on this; it's not going to 
>> matter in 10 or 20 years.
> Thank you for making a list to give people an idea of what D3 
> could be, but I definitely don't support less interoperability 
> with C++. I want D3 to have a better argument to transition 
> from C++ than D2 has.  With all the C++ API's out there, making 
> D incompatible would be a ginormous deal-breaker for a 
> ridiculous number of projects.  D3 should seek to be worth the 
> transition from C++.

Seems like there is a split right down the middle. The problem is 
of course that going down the middle is neither satisfactory nor 
innovative.

I agree with you, but I think the C++ compatibility is a lost 
game and increasingly so without aligning the core semantics. C++ 
is changing too...