Isn't it about time for D3?

[bachmeier via Digitalmars-d]

On Wednesday, 14 June 2017 at 12:22:36 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-06-14 at 11:57 +0000, bachmeier via Digitalmars-d 
> wrote:
>> 
> […]
>> 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.
>
> I suggest this is the wrong view of backward compatibility.
>
> If you have a code that is never to change then you should 
> archive the compiler that compiled it along with that code. To 
> demand that D must never fail to compile ancient code is just 
> wrong.
>
> If a code is to be left untouched but the compiler not archived 
> then the code must be recompiled and amended as needed with 
> each new compiler that is accepted in the workflow.

I'm not saying all old code should compile without changes, just 
that it should compile with only minor changes. I know that in 
some cases new releases of DMD have stopped compiling pieces of 
my code that shouldn't have compiled in the first place, and 
that's a good thing. On the other hand, dropping the GC would be 
a dramatic change that would require a complete rewrite. 
Libraries have to work with future versions of the compiler, 
especially if others are using them and can't make changes 
themselves.