Proof of concept for v2 - NO duplication, NO `static if` hell, NO difficulty with interoperability

[Ola Fosheim Grøstad]

On Tuesday, 2 November 2021 at 13:08:03 UTC, Dukc wrote:
> Huh? For me, it just comes out as trying to avoid the pitfalls 
> of the waterfall model.

So, for an iterative development model to function you need a 
solid foundation to build on. For an application the language + 
standard library + a good model of reality constitutes a minimal 
foundation. The standard library is the wrong place for 
experiments and revolutionary design…

> So I think you're either saying that there is not much 
> uncertainty about future in this particular case, or that the 
> costs of getting it wrong are low even with an all-in approach?

You should not put things in the core standard library that isn't 
proven already and  avoid experiments and "fashion". You can have 
officially backed application libraries and frameworks on top of 
it, distributed with the compiler.

You really don't want newbies to deal with 2 different string 
types, for instance, because one uses V1 and another uses V5. 
This is the difference between a toy language and a production 
language.

> Or that D already has one leg in grave, so it's time for 
> desperate moves?

No, it is natural for language designers to revise the language 
after a decade, like they are doing with Go. They are working on 
Go 2 now. And Go 1 had precursors.