On Thursday, 24 January 2013 at 22:45:52 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
Having a release process does not remove the pain of breaking
changes that make users miserable because their older code no
longer compiles.
Beg my pardon, it is very ignorant position. It assumes user is
some kind of stubborn creature that is scared of any spec
changes. But it is not really the case. Users are not afraid of
compiler release breaking their code - they are afraid of not
having a single compiler version that both is stable enough and
works for their code. And that it is very different.
It is fine to break code in release if you still provide
bug-fixes to some older version that may be recommended for usage
until time to fix code base is taken. And this is exactly where
good release process shines, it is single most important reason
to have it.
To sum up my position:
1) D spec is imperfect
2) Breaking change are inevitable
3) Saying "breaking changes" are bad means hiding the problem
4) It is better to focus on process to minimize breaking changes
damage than rant about how bad they are
5) Leaving feature badly designed for years with no hope to
change is worse than breaking code.
I'd really like to read your position on _all_ of those
statements, because we are running circles here.
