Is there an intention to 'finish' D2?

Ola Fosheim Grøstad ola.fosheim.grostad at gmail.com
Thu Nov 18 14:42:20 UTC 2021


On Thursday, 18 November 2021 at 14:23:35 UTC, Adam D Ruppe wrote:
> 2002. So even if you incorrectly pretend "D1" = any D version 
> prior making strings immutable (which was D 2.06; Oct 2007.

So you want me to call it D0.

> It is true that Walter was skeptical about templates in the 
> olden day, but it had nothing to do with D2.

Ok. Call it D1+ then.

I am referring to the initial philosophy of D being much simpler 
than C++. I am referring to why I picked up D initially. And how 
Walter did communicate that simplicity in his messaging on the 
website.

> The history is easy to look up, you don't need to have 
> uninformed opinions.

Ok, but that does not really matter. Does it? D1+ is template 
heavy. There has been a significant change in philosophy and 
complexity.

That is my viewpoint and opinion. You may claim that it is 
uninformed, but my opinion is not about versioning or 
technicalities, it is about how the perception of complexity in 
the D language has changed over time. Basically a usability 
perspective.




More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list