What's wrong with stability, LTS, and not fixing bugs for "compatibility".

[Fred]

On Thursday, 8 October 2020 at 12:40:55 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On Thursday, 8 October 2020 at 10:37:22 UTC, FeepingCreature 
> wrote:
>> But that's not my biggest objection. This is: the purpose of a 
>> language is the code that people write in it. Are we 
>> acknowledging that most code in D has already been written? 
>> Are we giving up on growth? Are we saying "the level of 
>> popularity that D has currently reached is probably at or 
>> beyond the peak of usage"? Because if not, if we think that 
>> most code written in D is still to come, then we are harming 
>> people's future experience with D at the expense of not 
>> harming legacy code. I think this is a self-fulfilling 
>> prophecy that will kill the language.
>
> That's what Scott Meyers said at DConf: most D code is not 
> written yet. Don't make me come back again. Then he did come 
> back again.
>
> --
> /Jacob Carlborg

I don't really agree with this sort of mentality. If you keep 
breaking code then the most D code won't ever be written. Broken 
code that doesn't end up being fixed will stay broken. This stuns 
growth, especially for larger projects. Constantly fixing 
breaking changes is fine for smaller projects, but its a disaster 
for large projects.