Isn't it about time for D3?

[bachmeier via Digitalmars-d]

On Wednesday, 14 June 2017 at 11:34:09 UTC, Wulfklaue wrote:

> Just changing the library to D3 and not the base D name will 
> result in people finding old code, not getting it to work, 
> getting frustrated and simply ignoring the language. Hey, 
> despite loving the syntax, did the exact same thing with Swift.
>
> With D i can find 3 or 4 year old code and get it running 
> something without a single issue. Or a quick fix. Just saying, 
> its not just about the language and library features. it also 
> about what is round the language. The examples and code out 
> there, the packages, the editors and other support.

D3 isn't going to happen. I ignored this thread as a result. I 
only read the most recent posts because I wanted to see why it 
hadn't died. I doubt that Phobos 2 will happen either. All 
comments I've read from Walter and Andrei indicate that there are 
no plans for either.

I've been using D for four years. I can still compile code that 
compiled with DMD at that time, with only a few minor 
modifications. I expect to be able to do the same four years from 
now.