Is it time for D 3.0?

[zoujiaqing]

On Friday, 27 March 2020 at 15:56:40 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer 
wrote:
> There have been a lot of this pattern happening:
>
> 1. We need to add feature X, to fix problem Y.
> 2. This will break ALL CODE IN EXISTENCE
> 3. OK, cancel the fix, we'll just live with it.
>
> Having a new branch of the compiler will provide a way to keep 
> D2 development alive while giving a playground to add new 
> mechanisms, fix long-existing design issues, and provide an 
> opt-in for code breakage.
>
> Some issues I can think of:
>
> 1. The safe by default debate
> 2. pure by default
> 3. nothrow by default
> 4. String interpolation DIP
> 5. auto-decoding
> 6. range.save
> 7. virtual by default
> 8. ProtoObject
>
> Other languages evolve much quicker than D, but break things 
> only in major updates. D seems to "sort of" break things, 
> there's always a risk in every release. We try to be 
> conservative, but we have this horrible mix of deciding some 
> features can break things, while others are not allowed to, and 
> there's no clear guide as to which breakage fits in which 
> category.
>
> If we went to a more regular major release schedule, and 
> decided for a roadmap for each major release what features 
> would be included, it would allow much better planning, and 
> much more defensible breakage of code. If you know that your 
> code will only compile with D2.x, and you're fine with that, 
> then great, don't upgrade to D3.x. If you desperately want a 
> feature, you may have to upgrade to D3.x, but once you get 
> there, you know your code is going to build for a while.
>
> We could also not plan for many major releases, but at least 
> move to D3 for some major TLC to the language that is held back 
> to prevent breakage.
>
> I work occasionally with Swift, and they move very fast, and 
> break a lot of stuff, but only in major versions. It's a bit 
> fast for my taste, but it seems to work for them. And they get 
> to fix issues that languages like C++ might have been stuck 
> with forever.
>
> The biggest drawback is that we aren't a huge language, with 
> lots of manpower to keep x branches going at once.
>
> I just wanted to throw it out as a discussion point. We spend 
> an awful lot of newsgroup server bytes debating things that to 
> me seem obvious, but have legitimate downsides for not breaking 
> them in a "stable" language.
>
> -Steve

Thank you Steve!

I want to upgrade to dlang 3.0 and need change it:
1. ARC for GC is default
2. So fast json library
3. Async and await for D
4. Organize standard library

-Brian