Moving towards D2 2.061 (and D1 1.076)

[deadalnix]

On Thursday, 13 December 2012 at 23:47:56 UTC, Walter Bright 
wrote:
> It's Remedy Games. It's a big deal for them, and their use of D 
> is a big deal for us, big enough that we can bend our procedure 
> for them. They were also under severe time pressure. They began 
> using UDAs the same day I implemented them. Remedy could very 
> well be the tipping point for D, and I'm not going to allow 
> them to fail.
>
> It's also not a conflict of interest - what they want from D is 
> really what we all want from it.
>
> I understand that some of you may be frustrated by my giving 
> their needs priority, but I hope that the end result will be 
> better for all of us than if I didn't, and that you'll indulge 
> me with this.

You have to understand that this isn't their need that is 
important here. They need stuff that we mostly all need, so I 
tend to agree. The fact is that you unilaterally decide to give 
that priority, when we are not even aware of them or of their 
needs. And that is the problem.

I understand that this game is a big deal for D and I'm all for 
supporting that effort. But, it can't be done against the 
community, or you'll alienate everybody here.

We all here are trying to support D in different ways, but if we 
are not aware of the goals, it simply will not work. You will 
ends up with a fork continuing that way, and I think phobos vs 
Tango for D1 was already enough.

Isn't it preferable to help them to migrate to the new syntax 
rather than bringing everybody in the same boat ? The feature 
hasn't been released, so I'm pretty sure most D actor don't have 
a lot of them in their codebase, which make the support into the 
transition easy.

Introducing new deprecated feature into a release seems 
completely backward to me, and reading other comment, it seems 
that I'm not the only one. We should consider other solutions 
before sticking to that one. And you have to work with D 
community on that one, or you'll loose it.