Could D have fit Microsoft's needs?

[NaN]

On Friday, 19 July 2019 at 22:12:17 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 09:57:01PM +0000, bachmeier via 
> Digitalmars-d wrote:
>> On Friday, 19 July 2019 at 21:03:50 UTC, XavierAP wrote:
>> 
>> > After claiming that C++ is insalvageable we now see that the 
>> > Devil is in the details, and it isn't so easy to keep a 
>> > language clean over the years and over the features.
>> 
>> It's a simple, solved problem. The D leadership made a 
>> decision that, for better or worse, breaking changes were 
>> (approximately) no longer acceptable.  Keeping a language 
>> clean means you need a high standard to add features to the 
>> language and a higher standard to leave them in/not change 
>> them once you've had experience with them. Everyone complains 
>> about autodecoding, for instance, but it's by choice that it 
>> stays. There's nothing mysterious about how it can be fixed, 
>> you just make a decision to break existing code. {And just to 
>> be clear, I'm not saying the wrong choice was made, only that 
>> it would be trivial keep the language clean if that was the 
>> goal, and it would be called D3.}
>
> To be honest, while I understand W&A's stance of wanting to 
> stabilize the language and thereby (hopefully) drive adoption, 
> IMO things would be better served if we started working towards 
> D3.

I think both can / should be done. Really nail down where the end 
is for D2, whats in and what will be fixed. And start exploratory 
work on D3, but it should be "only use D3 if you're OK it 
breaking hard and often" and keep it like that indefinitely. At 
least until the major stuff is really worked out. D has often 
felt like living in the house at the same time you're renovating 
it. And that isn't a good situation.