Proof of concept for v2 - NO duplication, NO `static if` hell, NO difficulty with interoperability

[Dukc]

On Tuesday, 2 November 2021 at 12:07:31 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad 
wrote:
> For instance: "with this solution we can always change it 
> later, so we don't really have to be certain about what we do" 
> is a political strategy that is easy to sell, but is very 
> costly long term.

Huh? For me, it just comes out as trying to avoid the pitfalls of 
the waterfall model.

If a project wants to avoid needless politics and long-term 
costs, you probably are not saying it should go for waterfall in 
general.

So I think you're either saying that there is not much 
uncertainty about future in this particular case, or that the 
costs of getting it wrong are low even with an all-in approach? 
Or that D already has one leg in grave, so it's time for 
desperate moves?