Re: Isn't it about time for D3?

[ketmar via Digitalmars-d]

Guillaume Piolat wrote:

> On Sunday, 11 June 2017 at 17:59:54 UTC, ketmar wrote:
>>> Well, no thanks.
>>> The very same strategy halved the community for D1/D2 split and almost 
>>> killed D.
>>
>> as you can see, D is alive and kicking, and nothing disasterous or fatal 
>> happens.
>
> https://forum.dlang.org/search?q=%22D2%22+destroyed+author%3AWalter+author%3ABright&search=Search

so what? "nearly destroyed" != "destroyed". as i said, D is alive and ok, 
nothing fatal happens. backing fear of changes with "last time it almost 
destroyed us" won't do any good in the long term: it will ultimately end 
with having no changes at all, D will stagnate and die.

changing is a natural thing for evolution, even breaking change. evaluating 
was what done wrong/inoptimal, and improving on that it the thing that will 
keep D not only alive, but will make it better and better. otherwise, 
accumulated legacy will inevitably turn D into another C++, and somebody 
will create E (or something ;-). why don't create E outselves, and call it 
D3 instead?