Is there an intention to 'finish' D2?

[Paolo Invernizzi]

On Thursday, 18 November 2021 at 15:29:24 UTC, Ola Fosheim 
Grøstad wrote:
> On Thursday, 18 November 2021 at 15:13:59 UTC, Paolo Invernizzi 
> wrote:
>> Adam is right, D2 big shift was all about const/immutable for 
>> concurrency, as concurrency at that time was the main 
>> opportunity goal not to be missed.
>
> That is probably technically correct. I've always used D1 to 
> refer to "simple D" and D2 to refer to modern D maximising 
> meta-programming. Never seen "D0" used anywhere before, but if 
> that is needed to avoid noise, then so be it. Let me use that 
> from now on. (You usually include version 0.x in the first 
> version of a language, so this is a very odd thing to require.)
>
> Vision 1: simple language that can compete with C++ in 
> performance
>
> Vision 2: language that can outdo C++ in meta-programming
>
> There is a drastic shift in complexity and development focus. I 
> was attracted to "Vision 1", not "Vision 2". The language I 
> started to use followed "Vision 1", not "Vision 2". "Vision 1" 
> could have reached a polished state if "Vision 2" had not come 
> along.
>
> I am perplexed that anyone could disagree with this viewpoint.

I'm here since a LONG time [1] and at that time pre D1 was 
already used in production.

Walter pragmatic way of moving shined in the early stage, but 
early stage is the moment to experiment things. So you are right, 
*that* D was the simple language that could compete with C++, 
given the state of C++ (and processing power) in early 2000.

D2 had a vision, the D Programming Language. Something went wrong 
with it, something went really really well, and I was for a long 
time on the "break the compatibility" bandwagon and "fix the 
language".

Nowadays I agree with Adam, D is in a stagnant history phase, not 
that is bad (see Elm, for example), it's an opportunity, leverage 
it. Just stop experimenting, and go for D2 as LTS as it is.

[1] https://forum.dlang.org/post/40BB3D47.9030007@inwind.it