new DIP41: dmd/rdmd command line overhaul.

[Dicebot]

On Wednesday, 22 May 2013 at 21:15:24 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:
> My understanding of your reasoning is:
>
> 1. Stability is something binary, if you break some code no 
> matter how much code and on what grounds - if you break it 
> stability is zero. If you don't break any code at all, then 
> stability is one. There is no intermediate state between zero 
> and one.
>
> 2. By definition (1), D is not stable.
>
> 3. Therefore since it's not stable, let's accept whatever 
> changes because they won't make anyone's life worse.
>
> Is my interpretation correct? If so, do you understand 
> reasonable people may disagree with the reasoning above?

1 and 2 are correct. But 3 is actually "Since it is not stable, 
stop pretend it is in its current state".

Stability is something much more than just an intention. It is a 
formal promise and well-defined process. I don't want feature 
change anarchy, I want _true_ stability. It just happens that 
true stability often accepts inevitability of change and strictly 
defines what changes can be done and, most importantly, how it 
can be done.

Of course people (and D developers) can disagree. But what about 
at least defining (on dlang.org) _your_ view on stability and 
what guarantees that does provide for users? Isn't this a 
reasonable request? Because currently it is more like buzz word.