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

[Ola Fosheim Grøstad]

On Friday, 9 October 2020 at 15:27:26 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad 
wrote:
> 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:

Uh, that was wrong, more like this:

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

year 10: make unqualified constructors illegal

year 20: make unqualified constructors "explicit"