Future of D 2.x as stable/bug fix, and what's next for D 3.x

Paul Backus snarwin at gmail.com
Mon Aug 31 19:27:40 UTC 2020

On Monday, 31 August 2020 at 19:11:40 UTC, IGotD- wrote:
> On Monday, 31 August 2020 at 16:34:00 UTC, Paul Backus wrote:
>> Do you really think these same people are going to come to a 
>> clear consensus about stability vs. innovation?
> That's the impression I get from reading this forum. DIPs that 
> are small tweaks that breaks nothing or very little often get 
> positive feedback. DIPs that makes big breaking changes or 
> tries fork in a new piece of technology often has more 
> controversy around it. Now, you would say that this is 
> completely natural but still I haven't seen that big enthusiasm 
> regarding the bigger changes. That's my observation when it 
> comes to D. When it comes to other languages, I don't know but 
> they are often governed in some other fashion like C++.

 From what I recall, DIP 1028, "Make @safe the Default", which 
proposed perhaps the most significant breaking change of any DIP 
ever, got a lot of positive feedback, *except* for the 
controversial part about extern(C) functions. So it seems to me 
like a substantial portion of the D community is happy to embrace 
breaking changes, as long as they're handled well and bring a 
enough of a benefit.

For a less controversial example, DIP 1024, "Shared Atomics", 
also introduced breaking changes, and was also received 

More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list