Breaking backwards compatiblity

[Nick Sabalausky]

"H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh at quickfur.ath.cx> wrote in message 
news:mailman.398.1331362435.4860.digitalmars-d at puremagic.com...
> On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 01:44:59AM -0500, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> "Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator at gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:wirsowklisbhbkbujewr at forum.dlang.org...
> [...]
>> > We might have a stable language, but if the library doesn't do the
>> > same, we'll never be Windows.
>
> Really? D is a stable language as of this moment? Interesting.
>
>
>> If we start freezing things now, we're going to be Windows 9x.
>
> You mean Windows 3.1.
>

I was pretty happy with 3.1. It's terrible in retrospect, but viewed in the 
context of the early 90's, I don't think it was bad at all. Maybe not as 
stable as the Unix of the time (I wouldn't know), but it was usable by mere 
mortals and was still a lot more robust than WinMe.

But then around the time of 98SE and Me, the 9x line just wasn't up to even 
the current expectations of the time. (And maybe my memory's foggy, but I 
seem to remember having more troubles with 98 than I did with 3.1. And Me 
was definitely much worse.)