D-Day for DMD is today!

[via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On Tuesday, 1 September 2015 at 14:52:09 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
> On Tuesday, 1 September 2015 at 14:39:57 UTC, Ola Fosheim 
> Grøstad wrote:
>> Why do you need long term backwards compatibility?
>
> It would be nice for bootstrapping... now that we need dmd to 
> build dmd, it'd be really annoying if you need to install 
> version X-3 to compile version X-2 to compile X-1 to finally 
> compile version X just because of some stdlib instability.

If that is an issue (I am not sure I understand why that scenario 
would arise) can't you pick a version of Phobos and make it part 
of the distribution, or mark some parts of Phobos stable and 
others unstable? I assume such stability issues also are relevant 
for commercial projects, not only DMD.

Seems to me that the most important advantage of moving to D is 
to attract developers that are unfamiliar with C++, so using 
selected parts of Phobos would make it a lot easier and fun for 
them to contribute.

I assume refactoring, high quality documentation and perhaps a 
tutorial too, of course. Seems to me that lowering the "anxiety 
threshold" could be an important move.