On Friday, 2 March 2018 at 00:39:08 UTC, psychoticRabbit wrote:
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.
D1 -> D2 nearly killed D (can't remember which, but it was either
Walter or Andrei that have said this on multiple occasions). A D2
-> D3 transition might generate a lot of publicity if done very
carefully, but more than likely it would just put the nails in
the coffin for good and destroy all the momentum D has built up
over the past 3 years (I feel like 2015 was a big turning point
where D finally got back on peoples' radars).
