D has become unbearable and it needs to stop

[GrimMaple]

On Thursday, 8 June 2023 at 19:34:41 UTC, FeepingCreature wrote:
> I am a developer who maintains real (commercial!) projects, and 
> I want D to break more compatibility and do less stability. 
> Just, you know, for reference.

Maintaining closed-source commerical projects isn't a problem 
with changing compiler. Because you only need to support one 
version at a time. Then, try writing open-source with many users, 
all of whom use different versions (and vendors) of compiler. Now 
you're in trouble.

> Also, at the end of the day, language development is not a 
> poll. There are some good arguments for (and against) a D3 
> split; "look how many posts can get spammed on this thread" is 
> not one of them. Otherwise we should probably go and make 
> `private` class scope as well...

D3 split doesn't hurt anyone. I don't know about making `private` 
class scope. If it doesn't hurt people - why not. After all, the 
"support" of an LTS branch will most likely go towards those 
interested in that branch, while others can use D3 if they want 
breaking changes.

Of course it's not a poll, but if issues come up repeatedly, then 
you have to listen to them. I don't understand how LTS is such a 
bad idea that everyone is so aggressively against it. It's not 
like we're stealing your freedom to do whatever, we're proposing 
(or at least trying to) a solution that theoretically should 
fulfill both ends needs.

> The thing is that D doesn't have structure enough to get a LTS.
> We can only try to always get newest ones because we don't want 
> to deal with old and nasty > bugs.

As someone in this thread pointed out already, LTS doesn't really 
require a lot of work to begin with. Just fix behavior in-place, 
with occasional security and segfault patches. At least, a 
working strategy could be developed according to amount of 
manpower.

Also, "D doesn't have structure" isn't coming from the nature of 
things. It has no structure because nobody is giving it structure.

I also find it very amusing how, supposedly, Walter has a final 
say anyway, but it's always the community's fault for D lacking 
structure, or manpower, or anything else.

I would've liked to see a negotiation point from the D core team, 
like: "We can do an LTS branch, if: #list requirments here#". So 
we can allocate people, assign roles, maybe even raise funds. But 
I hate it when core devs just show up saying "nah can't be 
bothered you do it". Because I know, at the end of the day, 
Walter can just say "no" and all the effort will go down the 
drain.

I find the whole idea of LTS pointless when the core community 
isn't interested in working towards that goal. I mean, if the 
initial author of LTS leaves, what are you stuck with?