On 28 November 2012 03:30, Mike Parker <aldac...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tuesday, 27 November 2012 at 21:23:12 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: > >> On 11/28/2012 5:25 AM, Max Samukha wrote: >> >>> Please stop repeating that "will break lots of code" mantra. D user base >>> is very small and it doesn't grow *because* issues like the one >>> discussed do not get fixed. When they are fixed people may start using >>> the language. And *then* you would have to worry about backward >>> compatibility. Look at the recent Manu's complaints and see what people >>> who would really use the language have wanted from it for years. >>> >> >> I understand what you're saying, but the counterpoint is we lost half the >> D community when D2 broke D1 code. We still have at least one major D1 user >> that still finds it impractical to upgrade to D2. >> > > That was more than a breaking change. That was a massive paradigm shift. > All the drama going on back then was rooted more in philosophical > differences and the Phobos/Tango divide, than changes to the language. > What's being discussed here is breakage on a much smaller scale. > > I've always said that it's the little things in aggregate that make D such > a wonderful language to work with. But the flipside of that is the little > annoyances in aggregate can make it frustrating to work with. New users > coming to a language often have little patience. IMO, their encountering > these little annoyances before the good stuff takes hold is a far more > pressing issue than a few minor breaking changes. >
Very important point! I'm far more patient and persistent than others in my company... I've no idea what sort of commercial interests are using D in production, > but I'd still confidently make the bet that a few breaking changes now (for > issues that people find frustrating) would do more good than harm in the > long run. Especially if they are introduced gradually and with time to > understand their ramifications.