D has become unbearable and it needs to stop

[H. S. Teoh]

On Fri, Jun 09, 2023 at 03:58:16PM +0000, IGotD- via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Friday, 9 June 2023 at 08:05:18 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> > It's not about not caring about it. It's just that I can't see how
> > it would be effective. Making LTS versions balkanizes the language
> > into multiple languages, which will play hell with 3rd party library
> > maintenance.
> 
> Think about it, if there wasn't a new D2 project that was decoupled
> from D1.  Where would D be today? I strongly suspect D would be near
> as "rich" as it is today. D1 would just stand still stomping.
> 
> Now it is time again to make that leap. Balkanization is a necessary
> evil I think.

I wasn't around during the D1/D2 split, but AFAIK there were D1 projects
that eventually had no way to transition to D2 because of fundamental
language discrepancies that had no migration path.

If D3 ever happens, it would be nice to think about feasible migration
paths for existing D2 code.

//

Also, as far as balkanization is concerned, I think we already have that
with -betterC and @nogc.  Let's just face it, folks, the people
embracing Phobos and GC are in their own camp, and the -betterC/@nogc
crowd is in another camp, and the two aren't seeing eye to eye.
Libraries written with Phobos in mind aren't compatible with betterC
code, and libraries written with @nogc in mind, while in theory
compatible with Phobos-using code, do present some friction (e.g., you
have to go out of your way to clean up after yourself instead of letting
the GC do it, like you would in non-betterC code; you can't pass a GC
callback to a @nogc library, etc.).

So, fear of balkanization IMO is fallacious.


T

-- 
The best compiler is between your ears. -- Michael Abrash