Tomas Lindquist Olsen wrote:
D1 does have some missing features that are in D2, and could be
backported to D1 without breaking any code.
This isn't going to happen for the sake of stability. But if I want to
use some of the new features, I have to get all the cruft that made me
look into D in the first place as well. A major reason I started with
D was because of simple syntax, GC and lack of the const hell.
D2 is no longer a simple language, you have to know all kinds of shit
to be able to use it correctly.
All my projects at the moment are in C++. And TBH I don't see that
changing any time soon. The stuff I did in D no longer works, and I
don't have time to debug the entire thing to figure out how/where the
compiler changed.
I've worked with C/C++ for decades, and it's a miracle if code that
compiled 10 years ago compiles today without changes. Code never works
without changes when porting to a different compiler. Code targeted at
VC tends to target specific versions of VC. "Portable" libraries like
Boost, STL, and Hans Boehm GC are full of #ifdef's.
The only real difference from D is that:
1. The evolution of C++ is about 10 times slower than D.
2. We're all so used to working around these problems in C++, we don't
notice it.
I understand your frustrations with the changes, just not why that means
using C++ <g>.
And yes, the Phobos vs. Tango (which in turn keeps breaking) situation
of course isn't making things better.
