On Thursday, 24 January 2013 at 21:00:32 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 1/24/13 3:58 PM, mist wrote:
Really, all this backwards-compatibility talk is a crap.
There's just a lot of evidence that suggests the contrary.
Clearly we don't want or like to be conservative, but
apparently we need to.
If you or Walter think that D is somehow stable or backward
compatible, you must both be very high on drugs. Yes that is an
ad hominem.
Let me tell you a story. This story take place one month ago. A
guy (me) get the news released version of the compiler. After
all, he badly needs it as bugs in the previous cause the GC to
misbehave in very scary ways.
First, some language specs have changed, so his code is broken.
But hey, that is to be expected and so the guy fix his code. A
bug is discovered in the compiler, it is a regression, and it
make the guy's code, once fixed, impossible to compile with 2.061
AT ALL.
Hopefully a brave knight (Kenji) cam to fight the monstrous
compiler and finally get it to compile the code it should have
compiled from day 1. The guy now use a custom patched version of
the compiler.
No revision of the compiler is released at this point, but worse,
the guy's code now trigger some other bugs into 2.061 (but not in
his patched version). The guy can't do D on his mac anymore as he
have no clue how to do the setup for his patched compiler. After
all, he is not really an apple guy.
Note that was already using a custom compiler before 2.060 as
2.059 already have blocking bugs for me.
D is nothing even remotely close to stable. D introduce breaking
change with EVERY new release. Worse, D has no sane way to
introduce such breaking change in a sane way. And suddenly, this
is an issue ?
