Stroustrup's talk on C++0x

[0ffh]

eao197 wrote:
> I mean changes in languages which break compatibility with previous 
> code. AFAIK, successful languages always had some periods (usually 2-3 
> years, sometimes more) when there were no additions to language and new 
> major version didn't break existing code (for example: Java, C#, Ruby, 
> Python, even C++ sometimes).

I rather think, that a "new major version" of any language that "doesn't
break existing code" could hardly justify it's new major version number.
A complete rewrite of the compiler, e.g., would justify a majer new
compiler version, but not even a teeny-minor new language version.

An D /does have/ a stable language version, D1.

Regards, Frank