On Thursday, 1 March 2018 at 21:49:31 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
That being said, I think that it's a given that we need to make
breaking changes at least occasionally. The question is more
how big they can be and how we go about it. Some changes would
clearly be far too large to be worth it, whereas others clearly
pay for themselves. The harder question is the stuff in between.
...
- Jonathan M Davis
Personally. I think the D1..D2 transistion was great idea.
I think D2..D3 should follow the same principle.
i.e restrict breaking changes to major versions.
People are always able to stay on the major branch that they need
- there are no forced upgrades here - you choose which major
branch works for you. The source code is all there for you, to do
as you please.
This is the only way to evolve - otherwise D will just become
another convoluted piece of %3@f!, like C++.
On the otherhand, I wish programming languages would just stop
changing so often.
The constant release cycles is just crazy! That's a sure sign
that something is not right. And who wants to program in a
langauge that is not right??
That's why I still like, still use, and typically still prefer ..
C.
Nobody dares change it ;-)
