D - more power than needed. Really?

[Georg Wrede]

Georg Wrede wrote:
> 
> If we, with D, can maintain backwards compatibility (no more than what 
> Walter -- and we all, currently aim to), then such would not be a 
> problem here either. We could skip the "Major version every 2 years, bug 
> fixes in between" mantra, and make D more into a pipeline -- like a 
> continuous process. (We're on the Net: no need to plan the manual books 
> and boxes, and the ad campaign 18 months in advance.)
> 
> This sounds daring, I admit, but we've seen it done. And if we do it on 
> purpose (vs. ending up there), then we can do it in style and elegance. 
> It is for this thing we have the /deprecated/ keyword. If we only made 
> major steps, who'd care about that -- there'd be so much else to plan 
> ahead when switching to the new version at the sweat shop. (And most of 
> the existing software would stay updated with the old version anyway.)

Knowing that all post-1.0 compilers are _guaranteed_ to be available on 
the net _indefinitely_, is one major factor for today's code shops, when 
they decide on the next language.