Thoughts on some code breakage with 2.074

[H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d]

On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 03:19:20AM +0200, Adam Wilson via Digitalmars-d wrote:
[...]
> Either way all I hear about is corp users not liking breaking changes.
> That has been demonstrated as a false concern time and time again.
> 
> If it's a matter of unmaintained libraries, those libraries probably
> have bigger problems than breaking compiler changes, fork and upgrade
> them or write your own. Because those have always been the only two
> choices you've ever had in practice anyways. Telling the world that we
> can't make breaking changes to the compiler because it might break an
> unmaintained library is irrational position and extreme position to
> take. It will *not* win us hearts and minds.
> 
> Let's stop hiding behind our misplaced fears over corp-users and
> unmaintained libraries so that we can start improving D for everyone
> who is using it today.
[...]

+1.  Please let's not go down the same path that led C++ to become what
it is today: an overly complex language that almost nobody fully
understands (and even fewer can write correct code in), yet still
suffering under the weight of design mistakes of decades ago. But in
spite of all that, it's, oh, backward-compatible!  How wonderful, I can
still compile my horribly-broken, memory-leaking, pointer-bug-infested
excuse for code that I wrote when I was still in college! Isn't that
great?  Oh wait, it just segfaulted.  No biggie, I can fix that easily
... give gimme a minute... uh... um... OK, WHAT has changed since the
90's that I can't do *this* anymore? (5 hours later) I give up, this
code is useless.  Why does C++ still bother supporting this crappy
excuse for code after 2 decades?!


T

-- 
Skill without imagination is craftsmanship and gives us many useful objects such as wickerwork picnic baskets.  Imagination without skill gives us modern art. -- Tom Stoppard