Could D have fit Microsoft's needs?

[H. S. Teoh]

On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 09:57:01PM +0000, bachmeier via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> 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.}

To be honest, while I understand W&A's stance of wanting to stabilize
the language and thereby (hopefully) drive adoption, IMO things would be
better served if we started working towards D3.


T

-- 
One Word to write them all, One Access to find them, One Excel to count them all, And thus to Windows bind them. -- Mike Champion