new DIP41: dmd/rdmd command line overhaul.

[Dicebot]

On Wednesday, 22 May 2013 at 14:37:10 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
> On Wednesday, 22 May 2013 at 14:09:57 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
>> no one cares about reasons for code breakage. For those who 
>> care about breakage, it is a boolean flag - either breaks, or 
>> not.
>
> This may well be the case, but you're missing the point:
>
> Breakage is always bad, so we avoid it *unless* the change adds 
> some significant value to the language.
> Fixing a bug (almost) always adds significant value.
> Changing command line syntax, in my opinion (and, it would 
> appear, Walter and Andrei's) does not add significant value.
>
> Although each individual person who suffers breakage may not 
> care why it happened, this does not in any way constitute an 
> argument for allowing less important changes to break stuff.

You seem to misunderstand what angers me and Jacob here. It is 
not the fact that this specific DIP is rejected (I don't really 
care), it is the fact that D developers keep repeating "D goes 
stable" mantra when it actually does not. Pretending to 
prioritize stability and breaking code even with bug fixes is 
technically lying. Bad for reputation, bad for marketing. And 
good luck using "They have a different understanding of 
stability" line in a dialog with enterprise type manager.

If stability is really a priority - please start doing something 
real about it. At least start with defining what "stability" 
means and what guarantees D team can give for users. Publish it 
at dlang.org and it is at least a start.

Or stop rejecting stuff using "stability" as smoke screen. This 
two options exclude each other.