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

[Walter Bright]

On 10/8/2020 3:37 AM, FeepingCreature wrote:
> But that's not my biggest objection. This is: the purpose of a language is the 
> code that people write in it. Are we acknowledging that most code in D has 
> already been written? Are we giving up on growth? Are we saying "the level of 
> popularity that D has currently reached is probably at or beyond the peak of 
> usage"? Because if not, if we think that most code written in D is still to 
> come, then we are harming people's future experience with D at the expense of 
> not harming legacy code. I think this is a self-fulfilling prophecy that will 
> kill the language.

I honestly don't know where this is coming from. There are a number of proposals 
in the DIP queue. Stefan is working on type functions. I'm working on an 
alternative method to speed up template metaprogramming. Steven is outlining a 
Phobos std2 design. I'm working on an ownership/borrowing addition.

As for the named parameter DIP, it was approved. My string formatting DIP was 
rejected, even though I strongly feel it is the right move for D, because nobody 
else seemed to want it. There is a long list of -preview switches implemented.

 > When I can switch from 2.090.1 to 2.094.0 and often only get warnings, I'm 
more upset than happy

I interpret that as we're doing a good job not breaking peoples' code :-/