Could D have fit Microsoft's needs?

[bachmeier]

On Friday, 19 July 2019 at 21:03:50 UTC, XavierAP wrote:

> After claiming that C++ is insalvageable we now see that the 
> Devil is in the details, and it isn't so easy to keep a 
> language clean over the years and over the features.

It's a simple, solved problem. The D leadership made a decision 
that, for better or worse, breaking changes were (approximately) 
no longer acceptable. Keeping a language clean means you need a 
high standard to add features to the language and a higher 
standard to leave them in/not change them once you've had 
experience with them. Everyone complains about autodecoding, for 
instance, but it's by choice that it stays. There's nothing 
mysterious about how it can be fixed, you just make a decision to 
break existing code. {And just to be clear, I'm not saying the 
wrong choice was made, only that it would be trivial keep the 
language clean if that was the goal, and it would be called D3.}