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