D Editions

[Timon Gehr]

On 6/6/24 06:21, Federico wrote:
> 
> Let's talk about the initiative related to this thread: it doesn't work. 
> It's not acceptable that using the same language, I would write code 
> that wouldn't be compiled by the machine of the programmer at the desk 
> next to mine.

Use the same compiler and it will work. With editions, even using a 
newer compiler, you will still be able to compile older code. That is 
part of the value proposition here.

> This would be possible if I were programming in C and he 
> in D, but if we both work in Dv2, the language standard must be the same 
> for everyone.
> ...

There is no single language standard. And even in C and C++, the 
language standards are often not formal enough about all details, so in 
the end it's still about consensus of compiler implementations. Those 
compilers also have switches to enable different language behaviors.

> Of course, there can be a Dv3, Dv4... Dv2001, but someone has to 
> standardize each version and, once done, there must be a freeze that 
> prevents changes (except for debugging).
> ...

That is exactly what this DIP is proposing. I do not understand your 
objection. Even more: It proposes that different standard "immutable" 
versions remain compatible.

> Maybe I am too conservative for a lively language like this, it happens 
> to us sixty-year-olds. But being sixty has an advantage: we know the 
> business world well. From experience, I would find it very difficult to 
> convince a company to use code written in D. Companies are more 
> conservative than sixty-year-olds and do not like investments that 
> change from one day to the next. Asking a programmer what version of D 
> they work with is inconvenient,

You no longer have to ask with this proposal. That is the point.

> it is much more practical not to accept D.
> ...

Well, D users have always been a self-selected group and it has had 
advantages, also for the businesses that did choose to engage with D.

> Now I retreat, apologizing for the inconvenience caused.

Well it seems you misunderstood what this proposal is about. It's 
actually more conservative than the status quo.