What's wrong with stability, LTS, and not fixing bugs for "compatibility".

[Ola Fosheim Grøstad]

On Friday, 9 October 2020 at 15:16:32 UTC, Fred wrote:
> I don't really agree with this sort of mentality. If you keep 
> breaking code then the most D code won't ever be written. 
> Broken code that doesn't end up being fixed will stay broken. 
> This stuns growth, especially for larger projects. Constantly 
> fixing breaking changes is fine for smaller projects, but its a 
> disaster for large projects.

On CPPCON they discussed what it would take to move from implicit 
constructors by default to explicit constructors by default.

They could do it like this:

year 1: deprecate unqualified constructors and issue warnings, so 
you have to write either "explicit" or "implicit" before all 
constructors.

year 20: make unqualified destructors "explicit"

LOL

I think there is a difference between a language with millions of 
users and other languages though. Major versions is a good 
solution for most languages, especially if all changes are caught 
at compile-time.